Back
2005 Supreme(SC) 1948
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N. Santosh Hegde and S.B. Sinha, JJ.
M/s Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Ajit Singh - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8543 and 8544 of 2002 with Civil Appeal Nos. 8455 of 2002
Decided On : 14-02-2005
Important Points
Subject
Labour Law - Industrial Disputes
Act Referred
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT : S.2(s), S.25(f), S.33(c)(2)
Headnote
Workman - Industrial Disputes - Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Summary: The court discussed the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and emphasized that a person would come within the purview of the said definition if he performs any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work. The court held that the respondent, being involved in legal opinions, drafting pleadings, and representing the appellant in various courts/authorities, did not fall within the definition of a workman. The court also highlighted the misapplication of legal tests by the Labour Court and the High Court in determining the respondent's status as a workman, and concluded that the impugned judgments were not legally sustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was appointed as a Legal Assistant by the appellant and was later terminated. An industrial dispute was raised regarding the termination, and the Labour Court opined that the respondent was a workman and directed reinstatement with 50% back wages. The High Court upheld the finding of the Labour Court but awarded 50% back wages as compensation instead of reinstatement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent did not fall within the definition of a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and highlighted the misapplication of legal tests by the lower courts in determining the respondent's status as a workman.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent qualified as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the determination of whether an employee qualifies as a workman should be based on conclusive evidence and that the misapplication of legal tests by the lower courts rendered their judgments legally unsustainable.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and directed the appellant to pay the balance amount, if any, of the 50% back wages to the respondent within eight weeks from the date of the judgment.
For the Appellant :Mr. Uday U. Lalit, Senior Advocate, Mr. Prasanjit Keswani, Mr. Nitin Sangra, Mr. Amol Chitale and Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Ajay Siwach and Mr. S.K. Sabharwal, Advocates
JUDGMENT :
S.B. Sinha, J.
These appeals are directed against the judgments and orders dated 4.9.2001 in L.P.A. Nos. 1311 of 1991 and 1356 of 1991 and 7.3.2002 in L.P.A. No. 1356 of 1991 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
INTRODUCTORY FACT :
2. The respondent herein was appointed by the appellant in the post of Legal Assistant; the qualification wherefore was degree in law with a practising licence. The nature of his duties was to prepare written statements and notices, recording enquiry proceedings, giving opinions to the management, drafting, filling the pleadings and representing the appellant in all types of cases, viz., civil, labour and arbitration references independently. He was also conducting departmental enquiries against the workmen employed in the industrial undertaking of the appellant. He was placed on probation. While he was serving the appellant in the said capacity, allegedly a decision was taken to abolish the said post pursuant to the recommendations of the Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., as a result whereof his services were dispensed with.
3. An industrial dispute was raised by the respondent which was eventually referred to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government for adjudication as regard the question as to whether the termination of his services was justified.
LABOUR COURT
4. A contention was raised by the appellant herein before the Labour Court that having regard to the nature of duties performed by the respondent he would not be a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act'). The Labour Court having regard to the rival contentions framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the applicant does not fall under the definition of workman;
2. Whether the termination of services of the workman is proper, justified and in order ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"
5. The question as to whether the respondent was a workman or not was taken up as a preliminary issue and by an order dated 24.9.1982, the Labour Court opined that the job performed by the respondent was of 'legal clerical nature' and, thus, he would be a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. In its award dated 13.11.1984, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent, having been retrenched from services by the appellant without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, should be directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
HIGH COURT PROCEEDINGS :
6. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award, both the appellant and the respondent filed with petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A learned Single Judge of the said Court by a judgment and order dated 30.8.1991, while upholding the finding of the Labour Court to the effect that the respondent was a workman; upon consideration of the fact that he had since been practising as an advocate and was appointed as an "Additional District Attorney in the year 1985, awarded an amount calculated at 50% back wages from the date of termination to the date of award, namely, 13th November, 1984 by way of compensation in lieu of his reinstatement in service.
7. The respondent filed two Letters Patent Appeals against the said judgment. The appellant, however, did not prefer any appeal there-against.
8. A Division Bench of the High Court by a judgment dated 4.9.2001, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and restored the award of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court but rejected the contention of the respondent that he was entitled to full back wages. It was, however, directed that the respondent would be free to avail remedy under Section 33-C(2) of the Act for payment of wages for the period between the date of the award and the date of physical reinstatement.
9. In the said inter-court appeals, allegedly the name of the counsel for the appellant had not been shown on the date of hearing and as such it was not represented. T
