NARSINHA ANANT JOSHI Vs. CENTURY SHIPPING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions are directed against the award of the Third Labour Court at Bombay dated 29 February, 1988 on a reference under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. By the said award it was held that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3047 of 1988, Narsinha Anant Joshi, whose services had been terminated by the employer was not a workman and hence the reference was not maintainable. Despite that, the Labour Court also considered the merits of the case and spelt out the relief that it would have granted, had the employee concerned been a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Act. The employee has challenged the finding of the Labour Court that he is not a workman by filing Writ Petition No. 3047 of 1988. The employer, Century Shipping, has filed Writ Petition No. 2500 of 1993 challenging the latter part of the order which relates to the observations of the Labour Court on the merits of the case. Both these writ petitions are therefore taken up together for hearing and disposal.

(2.) PETITIONER in Writ Petition No. 3047 of 1988, Shri Narsinha Anant Joshi (employee), was working with M/s. Century Shipping (company) as a Technical Officer since 17 September, 1982. He was confirmed on the said post on 1 January, 1984. His services were, however, terminated by a letter dated 21 January, 1985 without holding any enquiry. A dispute arose between the employee and the company in regard to the termination of services. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the Labour Court, a preliminary objection was taken by the company that the petitioner-employee was not a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Act and hence the reference was not maintainable. The Labour Court considered the nature of duties of the petitioner-employee and all other circumstances and came to a finding that he was not a workman and hence the reference was not maintainable. The Labour Court, however, proceeded to examine other aspects of the matter assuming that the employee was a workman and a reference was maintainable and made certain observations as regards relief that might have been given to the workman had the reference been maintainable. The employee has challenged the first part of the award holding that he was not a workman and the employer has challenged second part of the award wherein the Labour Court after going into the facts of the case has made observations in regard to the relief that it might have given to the employee had the reference been maintainable.

(3.) MR. Grover, learned Counsel for the employee submits that the finding of the Labour Court holding that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Act is perverse, as it is contrary to the evidence on record. According to him, a careful perusal of the nature of duties and functions of the petitioner-employee will clearly go to show that he was a workman doing clerical work within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Act. None of the duties and functions of the petitioner, according to the counsel, can popularly be termed as administrative in nature. Reliance is placed in this conncection on the decision of the Supreme Court is (S. K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra and another) (1983)II L. L. J. 429 and A. I. R 1958 S. C. 130.