UVI HOLIDAYS LTD Vs. AGNELO C COUTINHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order of the Labour Court dated 3. 7. 1997. By this order, the Labour Court has held that the respondent No. 1 is a workman as defined under Section 3(5) of the M. R. T. U. & P. U. L. P. Act read with Section 2(s) of the I. D. Act.

(2.) THE petitioner appointed the 1st respondent on 30. 9. 1994. According to the petitioner, the appointment of the respondent No. 1 was as a Deputy Manager. The appointment letter indicated the salary package which would be paid to the respondent No. 1 workman. One of the conditions was that he would be held personally responsible for the complete observance of rules and regulations of various International Travel Organisations, including the IATA and others of which the petitioner Company was a member. An order terminating the services of the 1st respondent was passed on 21. 3. 1996. The order indicates that despite orally reprimanding the respondent No. 1, his performance continued to be poor and, therefore, his services were terminated with immediate effect. He was paid one month's wages in lieu of notice.

(3.) THE Labour Court framed a preliminary issue as to whether the respondent No. 1 was a workman. The evidence of the complainant i. e. the respondent No. 1 herein, was recorded by the Labour Court. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he was empowered to take decisions on his own in case no higher authority was available and that the decision was binding on the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 has also deposed that his functions were not managerial in nature. He has admitted that the branch managers of the petitioner had to act in accordance with his instructions. A Director of the petitioner was examined on its behalf. He has deposed as to the nature of duties performed by the respondent No. 1. He has categorically stated that all instructions given by the respondent No. 1 to the branch officers were final and that any act of commission or omission of the respondent No. 1 was binding on the petitioner. The Director has further admitted in his cross-examination that the respondent No. 1 did not have the power to recruit employees though he recommended them. He has also admitted that the respondent No. 1 used to sanction leave of the staff.