CHANDRAKANT DEVU SHINDE Vs. DIRECTOR CHHATRAPATI SHAH CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition impugns the judgment and order of the Industrial Court rendered on 19.1.1996 in Revision Application (ULP) No. 69 of 1995. By the said judgment the Industrial Court was pleased to reverse the view taken by the Labour Court vide its judgment arid order dated 30.12.1994 holding the petitioner to be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the I.D. Act'). The petitioner on completion of his graduation also acquired the degree in law as well as Master's degree in Social Work. The respondent No. 1 appointed the petitioner as a 'Social Case Worker' in the Family Counselling Centre on a consolidated salary of Rs. 700/ - per month and on purely temporary basis upto 31st March, 1991 vide the order dated 20.11.1990. By another order dated 29.8.1992, his temporary tenure was brought to an end and, therefore, he approached the Labour Court at Kolhapur and filed Complaint (ULP) No. 17 of 1993 under Items 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). The complaint was filed against two respondents, namely, Chhatrapati Shahu Central Institute of Business Education and Research, Kolhapur and Secretary, Maharashtra State Social Welfare Advisory Board, Bombay. The respondent -Institute filed reply and contested the complaint on maintainability as well as on merits. It pleaded that it did not come within the ambit of the term 'Industry' as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and the complainant was not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the said Act. Consequently the complaint was not maintainable.

(2.) ON assessment of evidence, the Labour Court passed its order dated 30.12.1994 on these two preliminary points and held that the respondent -Institute fell within the ambit of the term 'Industry' and the complainant was the workman within the meaning of the I.D. Act. It, therefore, directed the complaint to proceed on merits. However, the Industrial Court, while entertaining the challenge raised by the employer, agreed with the findings of the Labour Court on the first point, but did not agree with the findings on the second point regarding the status of the complainant as a workman/employee. The Industrial Court referred to the decision in the case of Family Planning Association of India and Anr. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court (3) U.P. and Anr. : 1994 (68) FLR 95 in which it has been held that the person working as a social worker in Family Planning Centre will be out of the ambit of the term 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. As per the Industrial Court the said ratio was applicable to the case of the complainant as well and, therefore, the complainant was not a workman. Consequently, the complaint filed by him came to be dismissed.

(3.) IN his complaint, the petitioner set out the nature of his duties along with his qualifications. He stated that he had sufficient experience in the field of social work after obtaining qualifications of law and social work. He was selected to the post of social care worker/counseller by a due selection process. His nature of duties were described in the complaint in the following words: