LAWS(BOM)-2004-6-192

RAWAT H S Vs. VOLTAS LIMITED

Decided On June 28, 2004
Rawat H S Appellant
V/S
VOLTAS LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been working in the service of the Respondent as an Assistant security Officer since November 3, 1982. On september 15, 1989, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 33-C (2) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming overtime wages between December 25, 1982 and August 31, 1989. The Labour Court framed five issues on October 24, 1991; the three principal issues being (i) Whether the petitioner proves his claim as set out in Exhibit u-1; (ii) Whether the claim is legally maintainable; and (iii) Whether the Petitioner is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The issue in regard to whether the petitioner is a workman was raised since in the reply to the application, the management contended that the Petitioner is not a workman.

(2.) On June 18, 1996, the management submitted an application recording that the application was pending before the Court since 1991 for leading evidence and the matter had been adjourned time and again at the behest of the Petitioner on 30 occasions to enable the petitioner to lead evidence. The Management stated that the Petitioner had not led evidence in the matter, nor had he remained present at the time when the case was listed for leading, evidence. The advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner had withdrawn his appearance on november 13, 1995 after which, the petitioner, nor his advocate remained present. In the circumstances, the management prayed that the application should be dismissed for default. In reply thereto, the Petitioner in his reply submitted on January 21, 1996 stated thus:

(3.) From the reply of the Petitioner, it is thus abundantly clear that the submission of the petitioner was that it was the management which must initially lead evidence specifically in view of the objection of the management to the maintainability of the application on the ground that the Petitioner was not a workman. The reply of the Petitioner contemplates that this was a preliminary issue which was to be decided first.