KASHMIRA LEO REBELLO Vs. HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner who was an employee of the respondent seeks to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the 6th Labour Court, Mumbai on 24-12-2000 by which, the labour Court has dismissed the Application (IDA) No. 527 of 1998, in view of his decision on a preliminary issue as to whether the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and on the basis of finding thereon that the petitioner was not a workman.

(2.) THE brief relevant facts of the case are as follows :

(3.) ON 21-3-1994, the petitioner tendered a letter to the respondent-company stating therein that she has been informed that the company was shifting its activity to Bangalore and was closing its Bombay Office from 31-3-1994 and as it was not possible for the petitioner to shift to Bangalore, she requested the management to settle her account with immediate effect. On 11-7-1998, the petitioner filed an application under section 33-C (2) of the industrial Disputes Act which was numbered as Application (IDA) No. 527 of 1998, claiming that the company had paid Rs. 10/- lacs and above to some other workers and that she had received only Rs. 1,90,505/- after 20 years of service. She claimed a different of retrenchment compensation and interest thereon amounting to Rs. 9,91,840/ -. It may be stated here that, in this application filed by the petitioner, there was no specific averment dealing with the question as to whether she was workman. The application was filed on the assumption that she was a workman. On 17-8-1999, the respondent filed its written statement. One of the contention raised in the written statement was that the petitioner was working as the Confidential Secretary of a sr. Partner of the company and was required to assist the Sr. Partner in her day to day work. She was independently entertaining the parties having business with the company, she was involved in important decisions that she was independently doing correspondence with the parties and various authorities and was negotiating important matters with the parties, that her service conditions were different than the workman and her last drawn salary was Rs. 9122/- per month. Hence, she was not workman within the meaning of section 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus, she had no locus standito file the application under section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.