SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. SUKHDEO RAMCHANDRA DHAKITE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Admit. Taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties.

(2.) This appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that Complaint ULP No. 357/1994 filed by respond-ent-Sukhdeo Ramchandra Dhakite, complaining illegal punishment having been imposed on him, will have to be tried even though in another Complaint ULP No. 442/ 1996 between the same parties, status of Sukhdeo on the same post of Divisional Accountant had been gone into and it has been found that he is not a workman. While Sukhdeo was working as Divisional Accountant at Nagpur, he preferred a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act bearing ULP No. 442/1996 before the Industrial Court, Nagpur (hereinafter described as 'the Nagpur complaint) complaining that the punishment of reversion imposed on him was illegal. In the Nagpur complaint, the appellants before us, raised a dispute that Sukhdeo is not a workman. This issue was enquired into in detail by the Industrial Court which, upon consideration of the entire law on the subject and with a well reasoned order, came to the conclusion that the nature of duties performed by Sukhdeo as Divisional Accountant show that he was not a workman. In particular, the Industrial Court held that Sukhde, as a Divisional Accountant, was called upon to maintain monthly, quarterly, half yearly and yearly statements and cash budget. He was required to check the bills and other statements prepared by the L.D.C.,U.D.C. and a Divisional Accountant. Under the powers delegated by the Board he was empowered to wrte annual confidential reports of sub-ordinate cadres covering Class-III and Class-IV categories. The Industrial Court further noticed that the post on which Sukhdeo was working had the powers to audit the bills to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- and he had to prepare budget etc. Accordingly, the Court found that the functions of the post of Divisional Accountant are supervisory in nature and hence Sukhdco, being a Divisional Accountant, was not a workman. The Present Dispute:

(3.) It appears that Sukhdco had filed another complaint while he was at Gadchiroli on the same post, which has given rise to the present dispute. That complaint being ULP No. 357/1994 had not been decided when the aforesaid complaint No. 442/1996 was decided. In this complaint, which was pending, the appellants herein filed an application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it has already been held in complaint ULP No. 442/1996 that while Sukhdeo was working at Nagpur on the post of Divisional Accountant it has been held that the Divisional Accountant is not a workman. This application was, however, dismissed by the learned Industrial Court on the ground that the preliminary issues will have to be framed and decided in this case also. Accordingly, the Industrial Court refused to dismiss the complaint. Against the said order, the appellants approached the learned Single Judge of this Court, who agreed that the nature of the duties performed by Sukdheo as Divisional Accountant, Nagpur had already been decided and the nature of duties, which may have been performed by him when he was functioning as Divisional Accountant At Gadchiroli, would have to be gone into and that the employer would have to lead proper evidence to show that the facts considered in Complaint ULP No. 442/ 1996 were not different.