SADANAND RAMESH SAMSI Vs. KIRLOSKAR CUMMINS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14th July, 1995 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Pune in Revision Application (U. L. P.) No. 58 of 1995 which was filed by the respondent company against the judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Labour Court, Pune on 31-5-1995 in the Complaint (U. L. P.) No. 77 of 1995 filed by the petitioner under section 28 read with section 30 and Item 1 (a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act ). The petitioner complained that his services were terminated by a letter dated 20-3-1995 w. e. f. 22-3-1995 in violation of the provisions of law and that it amounted to an unfair labour practice as aforesaid. He prayed for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service.

(2.) THE respondent company appeared in the complaint and contested by filing its written statement denying all the allegations of unfair labour practice made by the petitioner. It was submitted by the company that the complaint itself was not maintainable as the petitioner was not an employee under section 3 (5) of the Act as he was not a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent company seriously contested that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the said complaint as the petitioner was employed in the managerial and administrative category. Both the parties adduced their respective oral and documentary evidence before the Labour Court. On the basis of the said material before him the learned Judge held that the petitioners complaint was maintainable as he was held to be a workman under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently he was an employee under the provisions of the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act, and therefore his complaint was maintainable. On the merits of the complaint the learned Labour Judge held that the petitioner had proved that the respondent company had engaged in an unfair labour practice as alleged by terminating him from employment. The learned Judge granted the relief of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service with effect from 22-2-1995.

(3.) THE respondent company was aggrieved by the said order and therefore, approached the Industrial Court by filing revision application under section 44 of the Act. The Industrial Court reversed the order of the Labour Court and held that the petitioner was not a workman and not an employee entitled to file a complaint of unfair labour practice under the provisions of M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint by the impugned order.