GENERAL ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. RAM KANWAR YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, was filed by Hindustan Kokoku Wire Ltd. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 16254 of 1988 for substituting the name of the petitioner to that of General Engineering Works. It was also mentioned in the said application that Hindustan Kokoku Wire Ltd. is one of the units of said General Engineering Works. The said civil miscellaneous application for substitution of the name was not opposed and it was allowed as prayed, vide order dated February 2, 1989.

(2.) The facts leading to the case are that the first respondent, Ram Kanwar Yadav, was appointed as an operator in the die shop of the petitioner-factory on April 19, 1963. He was promoted as supervisor of the die Section in pursuance of letter dated October 13, 1976, with effect from October 1, 1976. His total salary was fixed at Rs. 525. The job responsibilities charge containing the duties of the first respondent have been placed on record as annexure P2. The duties and responsibilities have been placed on record with the view to primarily show that the first respondent was doing work in a supervisory capacity and, therefore, did not fall within the definition of "workman" as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is stated that the first respondent started neglecting his job of supervision in the die Section and showed slackness in getting the wires of proper gauge drawn by proper adjustment of dies for the operators to draw the wires. A large quantity of material had to be rejected because of the inefficiency shown by the first respondent. On October 5, 1979, while the first respondent was supervising the third shift, 5 coils of 2mm cycle spokes wire were rejected, as they were undersize. The management terminated the services of the first respondent, vide order dated October 6, 1979 (annexure P3). On account of his termination, the first respondent raised an industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court, the second respondent. The petitioner- management filed its written statement to the claim urged by the first respondent in which it was primarily contended that he was not a "workman" because on the date of termination he was drawing salary of Rs. 525 per month and was employed in a supervisory capacity to supervise the work of nearly 10 operators in the die and drawing Section. The written statement filed by the management has been placed on record as annexure P4. The management also filed 63 documents to support their contention that the first respondent is not a "workman". The learned Labour Court, the second respondent, on February 29, 1980, framed the following issues:

(3.) On the request of the management, issues Nos. 1 and 2, were treated as preliminary issues and after recording the statements of the parties, the learned Labour Court, vide its award dated June 18, 1981 (annexure P6), decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the first respondent and held him to be a " workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. No finding was recorded by the Labour Court with regard to issues Nos. 3 and 4.Against the award dated June 18, 1981 (annexure P6), the present writ petition was filed and on August 7, 1981, notice of motion was issued for September 25, 1981, and the passing of the final order was stayed, which was ordered to continue. The case was admitted on April 14, 1982.