VILAS DUMALE Vs. SIPOREX INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, directions or orders quashing and setting aside the Award in Reference No. IDA-206 of 1982 dated 22nd February, 1985.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as a clerk since 23rd April, 1974 with respondent No. 1. His last drawn salary was Rs. 1,055/- p. m. His services were abruptly terminated on 20th January, 1982 without disclosing any reasons for termination. The petitioner took the issue regarding termination before appropriate officer of the Commissioner of Labour Department and after following the procedure, the Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Pune, by his letter dated 26th October, 1982. On the basis of the failure report, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, referred the matter for adjudication by his order dated 21st December, 1982. In the Second Labour Court, Pune, the petitioner claimed that his services were wrongly terminated from 20th January, 1982 and claimed reinstatement of the full back wages with continuity in service. The respondent No. 2 directed the parties to file their written statement in support of their contentions. The petitioner filed statement of claim on 8th February, 1983 contending that the termination was bad in law, as no opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner to answer the claims and contentions of the respondent No. 1. The company respondent No. 1 filed their written statement and denied the claim of the petitioner. One of the contentions raised by the respondent No. 1 was that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was stated that at the time of termination of his services, the petitioner was working in a supervisory capacity and was drawing wages to the extent of Rs. 1,055/-, which exceeds Rs. 500/ -. The petitioner was vested with the powers of supervisor. Thus, he did not fall within the definition of a workman. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court recorded the evidence of the parties and also took on record various documents in support of the contentions. Having considered the evidence and the documentary evidence, the respondent No. 2 came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a workman as defined under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The reference having been decided against the petitioner, he has been constrained to file the present petition.

(3.) I have heard the Counsel for the parties and have perused the Award given by the respondent No. 2. A perusal of the said Award shows that the Labour Court has discussed the evidence given by the parties. It has been found as a fact that the petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk. Subsequently, from time to time, he was given promotion. Ultimately, at the time of his removal, he was working as a Senior Personnel Assistant Officer. His wages were also above Rs. 500/- p. m. The evidence given by the petitioner in support of his claim was examined. The petitioner himself stated that on 5th March, 1981, he was upgraded to the post of Senior Personnel Assistant. It is further stated that all along he was performing only the duties of clerk. He was preparing pay bills of the staff, completing ESI reports, production reports, workers leave records and attendence record. He also stated that he was working alone and no hand was given for either his help or for his assistance. He was required to attend all his work personally. He was not invested with any authority. He was not permitted to sanction the leaves of any employee. He was sometime required to sign the leave application only for sectional head. Mr. Mandhare used to give instructions to him and he was simply doing compliance thereof. He was not given any power to take any independent decision. Thus, it is submitted that he was not working in a supervisory capacity. On the other hand, number of witnesses appeared on behalf of the company. One of the witnesses, deposed that he is working as a time-keeper in the company since 1st August, 1977. The petitioner was also working in the same department. He was their supervisor in the Personnel Department. According to this witness, 4 persons were working under the petitioner and the witness himself was one of them and they were reporting their duties to the petitioner. It was further stated by this witness that the petitioner was supervising their duties and he was also taking care of payments of ESI and Provident Fund. It was further stated that the petitioner was incharge of watch and ward department, where 12 to 13 watchmen are there. The petitioner used to sanction their leave and used to arrange their shifts. It is further stated that three clerks were working under the petitioner. The petitioner also worked as an Enquiry Officer and also represented the company in conciliation proceedings. He was helping the Personnel Officer in discharging his duties. The second witness also spoke in the same manner about the duties of the petitioner. He stated that the last wages drawn by the petitioner were Rs. 1,055/- p. m. He especially added that conveyance allowance was also granted and paid to the petitioner. It was stated that this conveyance allowance was not paid to any of the workmen. He reiterated the earlier statement of the first witness to the effect that the petitioner supervised the duties of the time-keepers and he was also giving them instructions, if required. He was also supervising the work of watch and ward department. The petitioner was also giving instructions to the watch and ward staff about their shifts. Other statements made by the earlier witness have been reiterated.