GOPALAKRISHNA JUTE MILLS Vs. N SATYA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No. 151 of 1991 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner took the stand that the first respondent is not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the proceedings are not maintainable and requested the Labour Court to try the question as to whether the first respondent is a workman within the meaning of the Act as a preliminary point. The Tribunal rejected the request of the petitioner holding that the question whether the first respondent is a workman or not is a mixed question of fact and law and the matter has to be decided after the entire evidence is recorded on all aspects of the matter.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri I.A.Naidu, strenuously contended that when the petitioner denied that the first respondent is a workman within the meaning of the Act, it was the duty of the Tribunal to try the said question as a preliminary issue and no further proceedings can go on without the question of jurisdiction being settled by the Labour Court. He contended that the first respondent was promoted as Assistant Accountant in January, 1983 and was appointed as Additional Accountant from 1-3-1983 and later on promoted as Accountant (Raw-materials) from 1-1-1987 and that he draws wages at Rs. 1685/- per month and that he is not entitled to approach the Tribunal for relief.