BALWANT DINKAR KADAM Vs. MCGAY INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order of the Second Labour Court, Pune dated 6. 5. 1988 made in Application (IDA) No. 105 of 1987 under the provisions of section 33c (2) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE petitioner moved the Labour Court under Section 33c (2) of the Act claiming a sum of rs. 34,264. 80 from the first respondent. It was the petitioner's case in his application before the labour Court that he was employed in the first respondent's employment from September 1976 as a Pantograph Operator on permanent basis and that his services were abruptly terminated on 30. 10. 1986 without payment of notice pay or compensation. He also alleged that he had been paid his monthly wages from June 1985 onwards. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 22,100/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Hundred only) for the period 1st June 1985 to 31st January, 1986 as earned wages at the rate of Rs. 1300/- per month, retrenchment compensation of Rs. 6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred only), encashment of leave for two years at the rate of 15 days salary quantified at Rs. 1,300/- (Rupees One Thousand Three Hundred only), notice pay of one month of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only), bonus for the period 1984-1985 and 1985-86 to the tune of Rs. 2,164,80 (Rupees Two Thousand One Hundred Sixty Four and paise Eighty only) and Court expenses of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only), totalling to Rs. 34,264. 80/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Four and Paise Eighty only ).

(3.) THE application of the petitioner was opposed by the first respondent by its written statement in which the first respondent admitted that the petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,300/- per month, but maintained that all his wages had been paid from time to time. The principal ground on which the application was opposed was that the petitioner was not a 'workman' within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Act as he was performing duties of managerial nature and looking after the factory of the first respondent. The petitioner examined himself in his support before the labour Court. He stated on oath that the first respondent had failed to pay his dues despite a written demand made by him. He also produced a letter dated 30th August, 1986, addressed by the first respondent to the Manager, State Bank of India, Pimpri Branch, Pune, a copy of which had been endorsed to the petition. Apparently, the petitioner had applied to the Bank for loan and the Bank had addressed the said letter to the first respondent employer for satisfying itself about the financial status of the petitioner. The importance of the said letter from the stand point the petitioner was that, in this letter the first respondent in terms said :