LEENA PATADE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for parties. Rule. Respondents waive service. By content Rule is made returnable forthwith. The short question which falls for our consideration is whether the appropriate Government was justified in declining to make a reference of an industrial dispute arising out of the termination of service of the petitioner for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner was employed with the respondent No. 3 Bank in 1988 as a Clerk in trade Services Department and was doing clerical/technical duties. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to higher grade vide letter of promotion dated August 27, 1994. According to the petitioner she continued to do the same duties of clerical/technical even after her promotion. By letter of termination dated january 15, 2001 the petitioner's services were terminated by the Bank. Being aggrieved, the petitioner vide her letter dated January 15, 2001 raised two demands viz (i) for reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity of service and (ii) no action should be taken against the petitioner with regard to recovery of the housing loan till the dispute of termination of her services is resolved. As the demands made by the petitioner were not acceded to by the Bank, she approached the regional Labour Commissioner (Central) for conciliation vide letter dated January 31, 2001. The bank did not appear but sent its reply dated march 20, 2001 copy of which was received by the petitioner on April 16, 2001 only after the conciliation proceedings were closed. In the reply it was contended by the bank that the petitioner was not a "workman" as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes act as the duties performed by the petitioner were primarily managerial duties. The conciliation officer submitted his failure report vide letter dated August 16, 2001. The Central government, after taking into consideration the report of the conciliation officer by its order dated August 16, 2001 declined to make a reference on the ground that:

(2.) EXPLAINING the ratio in the decision in sarathy's case (supra) in Western India Match company Ltd. v. Western India Match company Workers Union, AIR 1970 SC 1205 : 1970 (1) SCC 225 : 1970-II-LLJ-256 it was observed as under at p. 262 of LLJ:

(3.) IN Ram Avtar Sharma and Ors. v. State of Haryana andanr. , AIR 1985 SC 915 : 1985 (3) SCC 189 : 1985-II-LLJ-187 the Supreme court after examining the earlier cases in State of Madras v. C. P. Sarathy and Western India match Company v. Western India Match company Workers Union held as under at p. 191 of LLJ: