TATA, PRESS EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. TATA DONNELLEY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner Union taking strong exception to the order dated 6th March, 1995 passed by the learned Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 161/90 holding that the Complainant has failed to prove that he is a 'workman' u/s. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ' ID Act') while rendering the finding under the preliminary issue. Briefly stated facts giving rise to filing of the instant Revision Petition are as under: - -

(2.) THE Respondent company by filing a reply at Exh. C -1 and Synopsis of written arguments at Exh. C -5 and short synopsis at Exh. C -8, has resisted the contentions raised by the Petitioner employee inter alia on the grounds that the Revision Petition is not maintainable u/s. 44 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. The Petitioner employee has been praying for re -appreciation of the evidence that was brought before the learned Labour Court. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Labour Court has decided the preliminary issue as to whether the Petitioner employee has been a 'workman' or not, as defined u/s. 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The preliminary issue of 'workman' was not unilaterally framed by the learned Labour Court. No burden was cast on the Revision Petitioner to prove whether he is a 'workman' or not. The record clearly demonstrates that after framing the preliminary issue of 'workman', the Respondent Company was directed by the learned Labour Court to lead evidence in the first instance and discharge the burden of proof that the Petitioner employee was not a 'workman', as defined in the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act and that under the ID Act. There was no any warrant for conducting enquiry before the termination of services of the Petitioner employee as he was working in a supervisory/managerial/administrative capacity, which has been duly proved by documentary and oral evidence. There was ample evidence available before the learned Labour Court to hold that he was working in a supervisory and administrative capacity. Despite one of the issue framed by the learned Labour Court on 7th April, 1993 was reading "Whether the Complainant proves that he is a workman", however, the Respondent company has led the evidence first to prove that the Petitioner employee was employed in the supervisory/administrative capacity and as such was not a 'workman', as defined under Sec. 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The burden of proof was on the Respondent company to prove that the Petitioner employee was supervisor and not a 'workman.' It was with the consent of the Petitioner employee in writing it was decided by the learned Labour Court that the Respondent company should discharge the burden of proof, therefore, led evidence first. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Revision Petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned Advocate Shri Mirajkar V.T. for the Petitioner employee and learned Advocate Shri Naik K.M. for the Respondent Company at length.