IMPORTANT POINT
The Labour Court and High Court have rightly held that appellant, who was appointed and working as an Inspector in respondent Board was discharging duties, powers and obligations envisaged under Section 15 of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1959 and thus does not answer the description of workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 2(s) and (j), 10(1) read with 12(5)-Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board constituted under Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other manual workers-(Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1959-Board employed appellant as Inspector u/s 15 of the Mathadi Act on prohibition of 3 months-But after 21 months service, his employment was terminated-He raised a dispute which was referred to Labour Court-Labour Court held that appellant was not workman u/s 2(s) of I.D. Act as he was appointed mainly as an Inspector and not to do clerical duties -Confirmed by High Court-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Contention that there was no examination of facts to record said finding on the question "whether the appellant appointed and working as an Inspector in accordance with Section 15 of Mathadi Act answers the description of "workman", as defined u/s 2(s) of I.D. Act-Whether correct? (No)-Is appellant a workman ? (No)-Reference under Section 10(1) r/w Section 12(5) is not sustainable-Larger question whether respondent Board was Industry u/s 2(j) of I.D. Act left open as not required-Appeal dismissed.
Held : This finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court was affirmed by the learned Single Judge who stated, "I also uphold the finding of the First Labour Court that the petitioner is not a workman . [Para 16]. In spite of all these, it cannot be stated that this aspect was not considered by the Labour Court or by the High Court in the writ petition and, there is any need or justification for this Court to direct the Labour Court or High Court, to go in to and decide this question, once over again. No doubt, in deciding about the status of an employee, his designation alone cannot be said to be decisive and what really should go into consideration is the nature of his duties and the powers conferred upon as well as the functions assigned to him. Even if the whole Undertaking be an industry, those who are not workmen by definition may not be benefited by the said status. It is the predominant nature of the services that will be the true and proper test. Operations of the Government which are pure and simpliciter administrative and of Governmental character or incidental thereto cannot be characterized to be industrial in nature, be it performed by a department of the Government or by a specially constituted statutory body to whom anyone or more of such functions are delegated or entrusted with. When, as in this case, as disclosed from Section 15 of the Act as also the provisions of the scheme, the primary duties of an employee and the dominant purpose, aim and object of employment was to carry out only certain specific statutory duties in the matter of effective enforcement and implementation of the welfare scheme in order to ameliorate and rehabilitate a particular cross section of labour, and, if need be, on the basis of his own decision which calls for an high degree of discretion and exercise of power to prosecute the violator of the provisions of the Act, Rules and the provisions of the scheme, we are unable to accord our approval to the claim made on behalf of the appellant that he can yet be assigned the status of a workman , without doing violence to the language of Section 2(s) and the very purpose and object of the I.D. Act, 1947. That apart, even judging from the nature of powers and the manner of its exercise by an Inspector, appointed under the Act, in our view, the appellant cannot be considered to be engaged in doing any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work and the mere fact that in the course of performing his duties he had to also maintain, incidentally, records to evidence the duties performed by him, day-to-day, cannot result in the conversion of the post of Inspector into any one of those nature noticed above, without which, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the decision in H.R. Adyanthaya s case (supra), the appellant cannot fall within the definition of workman . The powers of Inspector and duties and obligations cast upon him as such are identical and akin to law enforcing agency or authority and also on par with a prosecuting agency in the public law field. Consequently, we find no error in the ultimate decision of the High Court denying relief to the appellant. In view of this, we are not called upon to decide the larger issue and the said question is left open for consideration in an appropriate case, as and when found to be necessary. The appeal fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)

JUDGMENT

Raju, J.-The two important questions that are put in issue in this appeal are as to:

(a) Whether the Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 hereinafter referred to as "the Act", falls within the definition of "Industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and

(b) Whether the appellant, appointed and working at the relevant point of time as an Inspector, discharging duties, powers and obligations envisaged under Section 15 answers the description of "workman" as defined in Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

2. The appellant was working as an Inspector in the Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"] from 13.3.79, having been appointed as such on 10-3-79. On such appointment, the appellant was placed on probation for a period of three months and after putting in a service of 21 months, an order of termination came to be made on 17.12.80. According to the appellant, he was doing the work of supervision, detection of defaulters, other work of clerical nature, maintenance of registers, files, preparation of reports etc., on a dispute being raised, a reference was made under Section 10(1) and Section 12(5) of the I.D. Act, to the First Labour Court, Bombay, for adjudication. By an Award dated 18-7-86, the reference was rejected as not maintainable, on the findings recorded that the Board is not an Industry and since the appellant was not employed in an Industry , he cannot fall within the definition of workman , though the Labour Court also recorded a finding that the appellant was not a workman. It was also found by the Labour Court that the appellant could not claim any automatic or deemed confirmation and that being only a probationer his services were dispensed with on being found not suitable for the post of Inspector.

3. The appellant pursued the matter by way of a Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge as also an appeal before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court unsuccessfully, resulting in the filing of this appeal. Heard Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Naphde, Senior Advocate, for the respondents. Strong reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court reported in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board etc. v. A. Rajappa and Others, etc.1, besides inviting our attention to the decisions reported in D.N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee and Others2; The Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. Its employees and others3; Vizagapatnam Dock Labour Board v. Stevedores Association, Vishakhapatnam and Others4; H.R. Adyanthaya and Others v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and Others5 and that of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Management of Dock Labour Board, Viskhapatanam v. Industrial Tribunal & Anr.6.

4. The learned senior counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that after the decision of this Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board s case (supra), it would be futile for anyone either to contend or countenance the plea that the Board in question is not an industry so as to attract the provisions of the I.D. Act and that the High Court should have held in favour of the appellant on this issue and remitted the matter to the Labour Court for an adjudication on merits of the claim as to whether the appellant was a workman or not, since the Labour Court has chosen to record a finding on the claim of the appellant as workman , against him solely on the ground that he was not employed in any industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act. The learned senior counsel for the respondent, with equal vehemence, urged that the Labour Court and the High Court (the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench) had made a thorough examination of the facts of the case in the light of the correct

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1249

Cases Referred (5)