SUSHILA MITTAL ALIAS SHILA Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is sought to be challenged in this petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution is an order dated October 24, 1986 passed by the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, exercising the powers of the State Government declining to refer the dispute for adjudication under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') on the ground that the petitioner was not a 'workman' as defined in Clause (s) of Section 2 of the Act.

(2.) WHEN this petition came up for motion hearing on September 19, 1988 the same was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of this Court and the learned Judges observed that there were no grounds to interfere with the order of the State Government. The petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2854 of 1989 in the Supreme Court and it was allowed on December 9, 1991 and the case remanded to this Court for disposal according to law after giving reasons. After remand, the writ petition was admitted to a regular hearing and that is how it has come up before me for final disposal.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the petitioner was employed with the respondent-management and had more than 20 years of service to her credit. She claims that she applied for leave from December 3, 1984 to December 10, 1984 which was sanctioned and when she sought extension of the same upto 31. 12. 1984 the management refused to grant the same. It is also admitted by the petitioner that she submitted her resignation on 19. 10. 1984 though she alleges that it was not given voluntarily and that the same was obtained by the management by coercion and undue influence. It is further alleged that she withdrew her resignation as per communication dated 29. 11. 1984 much before the same was accepted and still the management did not permit her to continue in service. The management, on the other hand, pleaded that services of the petitioner were not terminated and she left on her own by submitting a written resignation on October 19, 1984. It was also pleaded that she was employed as 'incharge Tufted Section' on a monthly salary of Rs. 2850/- and on this account it is averred that she was not covered by the definition of 'workman' as given in the Act as she was employed in a supervisory capacity. On receipt of a demand notice from the petitioner conciliation proceedings were held and both parties were issued notices to appear before the Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer heard the parties on various dates as mentioned in his report and recorded their statements but despite his efforts to persuade the parties to come to an amicable settlement, the conciliation proceedings proved abortive and he consequently sent his failure report to the Labour Commissioner, Punjab who exercises powers of the State Government under Section 10 (1) of the Act. On a consideration of the failure report and other material on the record, the Labour Commission declined to refer the dispute for adjudication as per order dated October 24, 1986 which when translated in English reads as under: