APPARAO BASAVANNAPPA MANORE Vs. WANDLESIDE NATIONAL CONDUCTORS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an Award dated 27th May, 1985 made by the Second Labour Court, Pune in Reference (DA) No. 151 of 1983 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), holding that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the said Act and refusing relief to him.

(2.) THE salient facts are : The Petitioner joined the services of the First Respondent on 26th December, 1963, as a Trade apprentice. He was, thereafter promoted as a Machine Operator and later promoted as a Charge Hand in the Junior Supervisory Staff Grade on 1st April, 1970. By virtue of reclassification made in June 1974, the Petitioner was reclassified as a Production Supervisor and fitted in the appropriate grade applicable to such Supervisors, with effect from 1 -1 -1974. On 17th July, 1975, the Petitioner was promoted as Senior Supervisor in the Senior Supervisory Management Staff Cadre with effect from 1 -4 -1975. By this letter the Petitioner was specifically informed that, in view of the nature of petitioner's duties, he would not be regarded as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act. This letter was accepted by the petitioner who continued to work as Production Supervisor till 31st December, 1981. From 1 -1 -1982 the Petitioner was transferred to the Production Service Department. While working in the Production Service Department, the Petitioner was instrumental in organising 'W. N. C. Senior Staff Association' for ventilating the grievances of Senior Staff. An intimation about the said fact was given to the first respondent by a letter dated 10th February, 1982. In fact, the petitioner was President of the said Association. The Petitioner alleges that, on 23rd August, 1982, the works Manager of the First Respondent had called upon him to tender resignation, but that he declined to do so. On 23rd August, 1982, the Works Manager served the Petitioner with a letter informing him that his services were terminated on the ground that the Management has lost confidence in him. He was paid one month's salary in lieu of the notice period. The Petitioner raised an industrial dispute demanding reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The industrial dispute came to be referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court, Pune, vide Reference (IDA) No. 151 of 1983.

(3.) I have scanned the impugned Award with the assistance of the learned counsel land it would appear that the findings of the learned Labour Judge are based both on the documentary and oral evidence led before him. The evidence consisted, inter alia, of the letter of promotion given to the Petitioner on 1 -4 -1970 by which he was promoted from Charge -Head to Junior Supervisor, the letter by which he was reclassified as Production Supervisor and the letter of promotion dated 17th July, 1975, promoting the Petitioner to Production Supervisor in the Senior Supervisor Staff cadre with the direction that in view of the nature of duties, the petitioner would be ceased to be regarded as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. Apart from these documents, there are other documents which are of clinching nature. On 12th December, 1978, there was a self -assessment report made by the Petitioner to the Works Manager in which he has emphasised the fact that he was carrying on duties of overall control over several sections and had achieved expertise in problem solving and said, 'During present General Shifts, I am looking after material procurement, man power planning, and labour problems, scrap control,.......... I am also locking after the coordination between electrical/Mechanical/Maintenance Dept. and Production Department, to minimise the idle hours of the machines, due to maintenance work.' He concluded the self -assessment report by saying, 'I have been serving this company for last 14 years. During that period I have never allowed any labour problem to grip (sil) up during may shifts which I wish to bring to your notice, besides, I have extended all may cooperation in solving major labour problems such as Tool down strikes and lock out.' There is also on record the confidential personal assessment report of the Petitioner by the Works Manager made during the year 1979. A reasonable reading of this report would leave one in no doubt that the substantive capacity in which the Petitioner was working was Supervisory capacity. It is of interest to note that he has been assessed regarding his Supervisory ability to get things done and the Assessing Officer says, 'most satisfactory in organizing and planning work; an able leader'. Finally, the Assessing Officer remarked that the Petitioner was a good leader who could get the work done from all sorts of workers. Despite these documents on record, Mr. Dharap, learned counsel for the Petitioner, contended with some persistence, that from the word go, the Petitioner had been appointed as a 'workman' and was doing technical and/or clerical duties. It is difficult to accept this contention which flies in the face of the evidence on record. The learned Judge has rightly found, and I find no reason to differ from him, that the Petitioner, at any rate from 1st April, 1970, was carrying on Supervisory duties.