GAJANAN KISAN KOLI Vs. RAJSHREE ABRASIVES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court rejecting the reference as the petitioner was not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) The undisputed facts in this case are as follows:- The petitioner's services were terminated orally on 6.6.1989. A reference was made for adjudication of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent employee on 2.5.1991. Pleadings were filed by the parties. A contention was raised by the respondent in its written statement that the petitioner was not a "workman". Evidence was led on this issue. The Labour Court having framed several issues, held that since the petitioner was not a "workman", there was no need to answer the issues in respect of the merits of the dispute.

(3.) Mr.Kulkarni appearing for the petitioner takes exception to the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner is not a "workman". He submits that the Labour Court has ignored the evidence on record led by the petitioner to indicate the nature of his job with the respondent. According to the learned advocate, the petitioner was appointed as a Technician and he was required to operate the hydrolic press machine. He submits that the Labour Court instead of considering the fact that the petitioner had physically performed work on the hydrolic press machine and carried out other jobs related to the work on the hydrolic press machine, was impressed with certain documents filed by the respondent. He submits that these documents are letters which were issued by the respondent and signed by the petitioner as "Manager" of the respondent. The learned advocate draws my attention to the evidence of the petitioner which indicates that these documents were signed by him at the behest of the respondent. He, therefore, submits that this evidence on record has been completely ignored by the Labour Court while concluding that the petitioner is not a workman. The learned advocate then placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anand Regional Co-op. Oil S. Union Ltd. v/s Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah, reported in 2006 III CLR 512, in support of his submission that while deciding the issue as to whether a person is a workman what is relevant, is not the nomenclature or the designation of the person, but the nature of the job performed by him.