UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD Vs. RAMESH KUMBLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the learned Counsel; Shri Rele for the petitioner employer and Shri S. M. Dharap for respondent no.1 Complainant, who claims to be a workman.

(2.) THE petition is by the employer Union Carbide (India) Limited seeking to challenge the orders dated 22nd October, 1984 (Exh. H) and 29th June, 1990 (Exh.I), both passed by the Presiding officer, Labour Court, Mumbai and the order dated 4th October, 1994 (Ex. K) passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the Labour Court. Against the order dated 22nd October, 1984 passed by the Labour Court deciding the preliminary issue that the complaint was maintainable since respondent no.1 was a "workman", as defined in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "I.D.Act") or an employee as defined in clause (5) of section 3 of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 (for short the said 1971 Act), the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in this Court. It is, however, common ground that the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to challenge the finding that the first respondent was a workman after the final outcome of the complaint. That is what the petitioner seeks to do by the present petition.

(3.) THE petitioner filed its written statement contending that the first respondent was neither an employee within the meaning of sec. 3(5) of the said 1971 Act nor a workman within the meaning of sec. 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. THE first respondent was a Supervisor and was working as a part of the managerial staff. His last drawn gross salary was Rs. 3214/- and after some deductions the salary paid was Rs. 2715/-. It was contended that the first respondent was employed in a supervisory capacity and was getting certain benefits which were available only to the supervisory and managerial staff. He was in-charge of allocation of work to the workmen under him; supervising the work of the workmen working under him; planning and executing the maintenance of electrical department; recommending sanction of leave, allocation and assigning of over-time work, authorising over-time meals in the canteen and sanctioning the issue of parts from stores and also had the power to evaluate the work performance of the workmen in his department. It was, therefore, contended that the complaint was not maintainable since the first respondent was not a workman. THE first respondent was neither an employee under sec. 3(5) of the said 1971 Act nor a workman under sec. 2(s) of I.D. Act. On merits, it was contended that termination of service was valid.