RAMESH SHRIRAM SULE Vs. DILIPRAJ NIRANJANKUMAR GOENKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the award dated 28-1-2005 by which the learned Presiding Officer, 4th Labour Court, Mumbai, held that the respondent No. 1 is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", and that the termination of his services with effect from 12-8-1995 is illegal. The respondent No. l's services as a Purchase Officer were terminated without following the procedure required by the Act. The learned Presiding Officer has directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 with continuity of service and payment of full backwages with effect from 12-8-1995.

(2.) The petitioner is a company, engaged in the manufacture of printed packing material. They had appointed the respondent No. 1 as a Purchaser Officer. Apparently, in the course of employment, the petitioner asked the respondent No. 1 to carry some article from Mumbai to Ahmedabad. The respondent No. 1 declined. The incident took an ugly turn and the petitioner decided to terminate the respondent No. l's services. Apparently, some abusive language was also used and much has been said by both sides on the merits of the dispute. However, it would be appropriate to decide the controversy on the main issues raised in this petition i.e. whether the respondent No. 1 was a workman, since that goes to the root of the matter.

(3.) The petitioner appointed the respondent No. 1 as a Purchase Officer by an order dated 20-11-1991 on a salary of Rs. 3,000/-. The order stated that the services of the respondent No. 1 will be governed by the rules and regulations of the company and that his appointment will be on probation for a period of six months from the date of joining the duty. The order further states that after confirmation, his services could be terminated by either party by giving 30 days' notice. The respondent No. 1 in his bio-data accompanying his application stated that he has been working as an Asstt. Manager, Print Books. In pursuance of this application, the respondent No. 1 was, however, appointed as a Purchase Officer. The letter of appointment does not disclose the nature of duties of the respondent No. 1 which are crucial for determining whether the respondent was employed and working as a workman. The parties have led evidence on the point. The respondent No. 1 stated that he was doing the work of a purchase clerk-cum-office boy of carrying certain things to various persons. He was doing clerical jobs in the office connected with purchase of materials required by the petitioner and was working under the supervision of the Commercial Manager of the petitioner. The petitioner, inter alia, led evidence to the contrary that the respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Purchase Officer in the management cadre and that his duties were to interact with suppliers, meeting them and placing orders. He was also passing bills for payment and was co-ordinating with factory for procurement of materials. He was visiting suppliers for deciding various quality material and delivery schedule. The respondent No. 1 in the course of his deposition categorically accepted the suggestion that before the present employment, he was working as an Asstt. Manager in Print Production. Orally he denied that he was raising purchase orders on behalf of the company and affixing his signatures thereon. However, the petitioner confronted him with documents on which he had affixed his signatures which he admitted. Those documents are in the nature of quotations from suppliers and purchase orders placed by him in his capacity as Purchase Officer. It is true that some of the documents are also signed by one Naronha, who was the Purchase Manager of the Company. It is clear from the documents that the respondent No. 1 has been making inquiries from various suppliers for the purchase of equipments such as a crane and the parties have sent quotations to the petitioner in his capacity as Purchase Officer. Similarly, there are documents which show that the respondent No. 1 has passed bills by approving them. In some cases, there are two approvals, the other by one Naronha. There is no doubt that the respondent No. 1 was not working as an office boy or a clerk, but was functioning, according to his designation, as a Purchase Officer and responsible for procurement of material for the petitioner-company. The question that, however, arises is whether such work qualifies the respondent No. 1 for the status of "workman" as defined by section 2(s) of the Act which reads as under :-