PARWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition order dated 15.6.1995 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No. 2 declining to make reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'), is under challenge.

(2.) It is alleged that the petitioner had joined service with respondent No. 3 as Junior Engineer (Civil) on 1.9.1989 and his duty was of maintenance under the supervision of Assistant Engineer, Deputy Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer of the plant. All the maintenance work was done by the petitioner under the orders passed by the aforesaid superior officers or superior authorities and after the work was done, the matter is reported to them who verify the maintenance held under their supervision. The petitioner had been performing his duty very sincerely and honestly. However the petitioner remained victimised in the lands of respondent No. 3 only because of the reason that being a trade Union activist, he was the General Secretary of Khand Mill Mulazim Union (Regd.) Sugar Mill and had been fighting for the rights of the workmen. It is further alleged that because of the reason that petitioner's active involvement in the Union activities, respondent No. 3 always tried to find out an opportunity to oust him by all means. Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 11.10.1993 (Annexure P-1) sent the petitioner on deputation to another establishment i.e. the Budhlada Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Budhlada, a separate entity. On representation dated 15.10.1993 (Annexure P-2) made by the petitioner, the order sending the petitioner on deputation was cancelled vide order dated 19.10.1993 (Annexure P-3). It is further alleged that ultimately the respondent-management resorted to illegal way in terminating the services of the petitioner by declaring him surplus, and his services were terminated with effect from 24.11.1993 vide order of even date (Annexure P-4) by paying him advance salary for the preceding month and retrenchment compensation as per section 25-F of the Act. The petitioner ultimately served demand notice dated 20.6.1994 (Annexure P-5) under Section 2-A of the Act. However, the Addl. Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh, respondent No. 2 declined to refer the industrial dispute to the Labour Court vide impugned order dated 15.6.1995 (Annexure P-6) on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of workman. It is this order, which is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) In response to notice of motion, respondent No. 3 filed written statement and controverted the allegations made in the writ petition. It has been pleaded that the petitioner does not fall under the definition of workman as envisaged under Section 2(5) of the Act because he was engaged as Junior Engineer and that his job was purely supervisory in nature who was responsible to take work from the skilled and unskilled workers and such, the reference was rightly declined for adjudication of the Labour Court.