INAMDAR A D Vs. BAJAJ TEMPO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has brought in question the legality of the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer 1st Labour Court at Pune on March 14, 1989 in Ref. (I. D. A.) No. 101 of 1988 in which it has been held that the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of term workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and only on that ground the reference came to be rejected. Admittedly, the petitioner came to be employed by the respondent-management as a clerk in the Accounts Department from September 24, 1962 and thereafter he was made an accountant. During the course of his service, on September 6, 1980, he was issued a charge-sheet and by order dated December 29, 1980, he was dismissed from service on the ground of dishonesty in connection with the employer's property. It was contended that this order of dismissal was not received by the petitioner and was forwarded to him along with letter dated June 3, 1981 by which the representation made by the petitioner was rejected. On receipt of the dismissal order, the petitioner raised a demand for reinstatement with back wages and continuity in service and this demand came to be referred for adjudication by the Labour Court under Ref. (I. D. A.) No, 127 of 1982. The respondent-management has opposed the reference on the preliminary point of maintainability as well as on merits. It was contended by the respondent-management that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner-employee filed an affidavit setting out the nature of his duties at the time of his dismissal order as well as prior to the said date. He was examined at length before the Labour Court. On behalf of respondent-management, one Shri Kantilal Jogidas Mutha, Manager (Accounts) was examined. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Labour Court by its impugned award held that the petitioner was not a workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) IN its written statement, the respondent-management had, inter alia, contended that the main duties of the petitioner-employee required application of mind and initiative and he was not required to do any skilled or manual work or any technical work. In addition, as an accountant, he was required to supervise the work of his subordinates and he was not covered under the settlement signed between the respondent-management and the union representing workmen. A contention was also raised that he was getting petrol allowance, which was paid only to the managerial staff and he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1, 355/- when he was removed from the post of accountant. In his depositions Shri Mutha - the witness of the respondent-Company stated that the petitioner was working as an Executive Accountant, but during the cross-examination when be was shown a copy of the charge-sheet and the dismissal order he agreed that the petitioner was an Accountant and it has come in the evidence that the Accounts Department was headed by a Manager, who was assisted by a Chief Accountant, Deputy Chief Accountant, five Accountants etc. In addition, there were 25 clerks and some peons, etc. in the said department. Shri Mutha did not dispute the nature of duties of the petitioner as they were stated in his affidavit viz. preparation of trial balance, profit and loss account, checking of travel allowance of officers, filling the figures of depreciation and closing stock in the monthly profit and loss statement, maintaining of general ledger for income and expenditure and journal for adjustment of erroneous and wrong entries, correction of computer statements, sending statement pertaining to the bills, etc. to the internal auditor of the Company etc. There v/as no evidence brought on record by the respondent-management specifically to show that the petitioner was supervising the work of an employee subordinate to him like the clerk, etc- and in fact the Labour Court on this point goes to draw an inference against the employee solely on the ground that he was not covered by the settlement signed between the respondent-management and the union and he was getting petrol allowance, which was payable to the officers and managers only.

(3.) A number of judgments were referred to by both the parties before the Labour Court and it must be deplorably noted that the learned Presiding Officer failed to apply his mind to the facts brought on record as well as the enunciations cited before him. The learned Presiding Officer noted that preparation of statement after finding out mistakes from the computer statement cannot be said to be the work of mere clerical nature and it required application of mind. He further held the work that was being carried out by the petitioner-employee required certain creativity and imaginative approach.