TRIBHUVAN SINGH YADAV Vs. WESTERN INDIA ENTERPRISES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner who was a Junior Engineer working with the Respondent No.1 was terminated from service. Consequent whereupon he filed a complaint being Complaint (ULP) No.120 of 1990. The Respondent No.1 took a plea that the petitioner was not a workman, but in fact he was doing the work of managerial nature. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not doing the work of managerial nature, but was doing the work of supervisory nature. Accordingly the Tribunal held that the petitioner was not a workman and dismissed the complaint.

(2.) IN the findings given by the Labour Court it has been set out that the petitioner had the following duties:

(3.) NORMALLY this Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. In the instant case, however, it cannot be said that a person reasonably trained in law would have arrived at a conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below. Admittedly, the petitioner was doing the work of reading of drawing, taking measurements, testing and commission of the work under the guidance of the Senior Engineer and also releasing materials. If reading of drawings and the other work set out is not work of a technical nature one does not understand what work would be of a technical nature. In the matter of measurement also it requires certain degree of expertise for a person to carry out the measurement. Apart from that what has come on record is that there were sub-contractors who were doing the work, issuing directions to the workers of the sub-contractor would not mean supervising the employees of the Respondent No.1. Further it has come on record that the petitioner was working below a Senior Engineer and was working under his directions. In the light of this the Courts were wrong in holding that the petitioner was not doing the work of technical nature. The findings of both the Courts below, therefore, is to be set aside.The material on record prima facie establishes that the petitioner is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.