AJIT SINGH Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "this order will dispose of C. W. P. Nos. 1994 and 2018 of 1985. The facts as mentioned in C. W. P No. 1994 of 1985 may be noticed. The petitioner herein was appointed as a legal assistant with the Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Sonepat, on 27th September, 1978. On 9th February, 1980, his services were terminated. Ajit Singh raised a dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Labour Court round that the applicant was a workman and that the services had been terminated without complying with the provisions of section 25-F of the Act. Consequently, the order was held to be illegal and void ab initio. While examining the question of back wages, the learned Labour Court found that the workman "is a practising advocate" at Sonepat. It is difficult to believe that he may not be earning anything while being at the Bar. It is common knowledge that most of the co-operative sugar mills in the State of Haryana are in the red. So, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, 1 order that the "workman shall be reinstated forthwith with continuity of service and he is awarded 50 percent of back wages".

(2.) AIIT Singh has filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 1994 of 1985, claiming that he was entitled to be awarded the full back wages. The management has filed C. W. P. No. 2018 of 1985, challenging the Labour Court's award ordering the reinstatement of Ajit Singh. The primary ground of challenge raised by the management regarding the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to go into the dispute in view of the provisions of sections 128 and 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, having been negated by the Full Bench, vide its judgment of 14th August, 1986, Mr. Pawan Mutneja, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that a legal assistant cannot be held to be a workman. He has contended that his duties were not purely technical or clerical, but he used to advise the management, prepare and file written statement and even appear in courts. On these premises, it has been contended that the finding of the Labour Court that Ajit Singh was a workman cannot be sustained.

(3.) THIS matter appears to be concluded by the judgment or this Court in Rajesh Gars v. Management, 1984 (3) SLR 397. While dealing with the case of a legal assistant, it was observed as under: