GANESH PRASAD PANDEY Vs. KW THAKRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The preliminary issue, "Whether the Court (Labour Court) has jurisdiction to decide reference in view of the pleadings of the company that Shri Pandy, employee, is not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - has been decided against the employee where by the 9th Labour Court, Bombay, in its award dated 9.6.1994 held that the employee is not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the reference was not maintainable under the Industrial Disputes Act, The award dated 9.6.1994 has been challenged in the present writ petition by the employee.

(2.) Ganesh Prasad Pandey (the employee) was appointed in Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (the Company) on 4.4.1966 as Accounts Clerk in their Cylinder Factory Division. The employee upon successful completion of probation period was confirmed as Senior Accounts Clerk with effect from 1.3.1967. In the month of January, 1975, the designation of the employee was changed from Senior Accounts Clerk to Accountant. On 9.6.1977, the Company communicated to the employee that it had lost confidence in him and that his services would stand terminated. Relating to his dismissal from service, the industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication whether the employee should be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 9.5.1977. The employee fled statement of claim before the Labour Court on 12.12.1978 to which written statement was filed by the company on 29.3.1979. The 9th Labour Court on 19.11.1984 framed four issues. The issue no.1 was about the jurisdiction of the Court. The employee examined himself while on behalf of the company Sarvashri A.K. Sharma, R.K. Rathi and R.G. Vyas were examined. The 9th Labour Court after taking into consideration the legal position and the evidence on record and after hearing the parties by its award dated 9.6.1994 answered the reference in negative holding that the employee was not a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the reference was not maintainable.

(3.) In the statement of claim, the employee has narrated his duties as an Accountant. The said duties as set out by the employee in paragraph 7 of the statement of claim read thus: