KULWANT SINGH Vs. RELIANCE PETROCHEMICALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Shri Kulwant Singh is an ex-naval personnel and after serving the Navy as a Gunner took employment in Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. the respondent no. 1 herein, as a security-cum-administrative officer with effect from July 14, 1989. On November 9, 1990 the petitioner was confirmed by the respondent No. 1 on satisfactory completion of probation period and he continued to render services in that post till his services were terminated on June 28, 1991. The termination of services led to an industrial dispute being raised, and ultimately the Deputy Commissioner, Labour Court (Administration) Bombay made a reference to the 5th Labour Court at Bombay, for adjudication upon the industrial dispute involving the question of the validity and legality of the order of termination of service of the petitioner. The reference also required the Labour Court to enquire whether the petitioner is to be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity in service with effect from June 29, 1991.

(2.) BEFORE the Labour Court a preliminary objection was raised by the respondent company as to the maintainability of the said references by contending that the petitioner was not a workman within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, as he being an administrative officer he had been discharging the managerial, administrative and supervisory functions. The petitioner was drawing salary of more than Rs. 1600/- per month hence he could not be held to be a workman under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly the reference was not maintainable and the petitioner was not entitled to get any relief from the Labour Court.

(3.) THE Labour Court after considering evidence led by the parties held inter alia that the petitioner was employed mainly in the administrative capacity and any work which can be termed as work of clerical nature done by him was only incidental to his employment in the administrative capacity and therefore the petitioner clearly falls within the excluded category of definition of workman as appearing in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the findings recorded on the preliminary issue the Labour Court rejected the reference on May 10, 1996. The legality and correctness of the award of the Labour Court is sought to be challenged in this petition,