BRAJA SUNDAR DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for a writ of certiorari directed against the order dated 21st February, 1972 passed by the department of Labour and Employment, Government of India declining to refer a dispute for adjudication of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 10 (1) read with Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) THE petitioner was first employed as an agent by the National Insurance Company Limited. In October, 1969 he came to be appointed as an inspector under the same company and was assigned the duties of recruitment of field agents within the Cuttack district, give them proper directions, control their activities and organise the business of the company within the said area. He was also to attend to the processing of claims and was occasionally required to maintain records, preparation of cover journals, cover notes, certificates, etc. His remuneration was Rs. 175 per month. Some time after the petitioner fell out with the management and his services were terminated with effect from 22-9-70. A conciliation proceeding as provided under the Act was followed. On 28th October, 1971 the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report under Section 12 (4) of the Act. As no action was taken by the appropriate Government, the petitioner kept on reminding. Ultimately he was communicated the impugned order under a covering letter dated 18th October, 1973. The impugned order is as follows : I am directed to say that it is seen that the primary function of Sri Braja Sundar Das (petitioner) was to procure business for the company and the clerical duties were only incidental. As such it is considered that Sri Das cannot be regarded as workman under the Industrial Dispute. In view of this the question of Government taking action under the Industrial Disputes Act does not arise.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner con-lends that it was not for the appropriate Government to take a final decision on the question as to whether the petitioner is a " workman " or not and the matter should hove been left to be decided by the adjudicating machinery provided under the statute. It is next contended that the reason given for holding the petitioner not to be a workman is foreign to the statute and even if it is accepted that Government has power prima facie to hold that the petitioner was not a workman, the conclusion reached in the case is contrary to law. Though notice of admission and hearing had been given to the opposite party and notice has been served, there has been no appearance. The petitioner's counsel, therefore, is heard.