ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 4 appeals arise out of common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in 4 writ petitions which were preferred by the respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Management"). In those writ petitions, the Management had challenged the awards passed by the Labour Court for deciding the references pertaining to the termination of the services of the 4 appellants herein. We may record at the outset that the primary defence of the Management questioning the validity of the reference and jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the dispute referred by the appropriate Government was that these appellants are not "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Evidence was led by both the parties on this issue as well. The Labour Court, in each of the appellant's case, came to the conclusion that these appellants were covered by the definition of "workman". This finding was under challenge, in respect of each of the appellant, in the writ petitions filed by the Management. The learned Single Judge has accepted the plea of the Management and while holding that the appellants are not workmen, the writ petitions are allowed and as a result, the awards given by the Labour Court are set aside. It is for this reason the entire focus in these appeals was on the issue as to whether these appellants are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act or not?

(2.) Counsel for both the parties had addressed detailed arguments on this aspect with reference to the records of the Court below.

(3.) The appellant in this case, at the relevant time when his services were terminated, was working as Assistant Engineer (Design). In that capacity, he was working in research and development of the Management and his main job/duty was to make designs of the machines and to remove the bottleneck in the machines. The Management is in the business of manufacture of weighing scales. It is not that Management manufactures substandard weighing scales which are marketed. It needs to be emphasized that for manufacture of particular weighing scales, orders are received from the customers who give their specific requirements. Based on the requirements of the clients in respect of each work order received by the Management, it becomes imperative for the Management to design a weighing scale meeting the specifications. It is, thus, customized service which is given by the Management depending upon the needs and requirements of each client. Since the specifications of the weighing machine needed by different customers would vary, it becomes necessary to prepare design for each of this machine. It is this job which was assigned to the appellant in question, namely, Ashwani Kumar Kamboj. He, being technically qualified and expert in computer designing, was undertaking the work of designing the weighing machines. Based on the designs prepared by him, other workers of the Management would do the job of manufacturing the machines. While undertaking this work, if any of the workers would feel difficulty, the same would be referred to the appellant and the appellant would take care of those difficulties by removing the bottlenecks in the machines. It was this job, as described by us above, which was the main job of the appellant, namely, making designs of the machine and removing bottlenecks in the machines.