C GOPINATHAN PILLAI Vs. THERMAX LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges the order dated 12th july, 1996 of the Industrial Court, Pune passed in Revision Application No. 16 of 1996 setting aside the order dated 18th January, 1996 passed by the 1st, Labour Court, Pune in Complaint (ULP) No. 240 of 1994 whereby the labour Court had held that the petitioner is a workman.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed initially with M/s. Thermax Limited, respondent No. 1 herein, (hereinafter referred to as "the company") as a Stenographer in Grade IV on 1st July, 1981. The Rules and Regulations applicable to the staff members were applicable to him. Thereafter there was a restructuring of the grades and the employees were graded into Grades "m", "p" and "s"-"m" being the managerial grade, "p" the Professional grade and "s" denoting the staff grade. The petitioner was promoted to Grade S-2 and was designated as Officer (Training) from 1st July, 1993. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 24th August, 1994. Aggrieved by this decision of the company, the petitioner filed a complaint under Item 1 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) and Item 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "m. R. T. P. and P. U. L. P. Act" ). The company contested the complaint and contended that the petitioner was not a workman under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "id Act") and therefore not an employee under the M. R. T. P. and P. U. L. P. Act. It was contended that the complaint was not maintainable as the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide a complaint which was filed by a person who was not an employee.

(3.) EVIDENCE was adduced before the Labour Court. Voluminous documentary evidence was produced. The petitioner examined himself. The company examined Kiran Gandhi, respondent No. 3 in support of their contention. The labour Court after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a "workman" as defined under section 2 (s) of the i. D. Act and, therefore, was covered by the definition of "employee" under section 3 (5) of the M. R. T. P. and P. U. L. P. Act. The order of the Labour Court was challenged by the company by preferring a revision application under section 44 of the M. R. T. P. and P. U. L. P. Act. The Industrial Court allowed the revision application on 12th July, 1996 and dismissed the complaint. The Industrial court was of the view that the findings of the Labour Court that the petitioner was a workman was perverse and that the voluminous documentary evidence on record demonstrated that the complaint was not maintainable as the petitioner was not a workman. The Industrial Court was of the view that the petitioner was working as a co-ordinator, assessor and organiser and this work could not be considered as clerical work as held by the labour Court. It is this order of the Industrial Court which is impugned in the present writ petition.