The definition of 'Workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act excludes those in supervisory roles who exceed statutory salary limits, impacting jurisdiction over disputes.

ORDER :

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J.

The writ petition No.21411 of 2006 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer:-

“……a) call for the records pertaining to the impugned Award dated June 30, 2006 in I.D.No.135 of 2003 passed by the Respondent No.1 viz. the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur and Published by the Deputy Secretary to Government Labour Employment Training Factories (Lab.I) Department G.O.Rt.No.1839 dated August 29, 2006 on 25th September 2006 and b) quash the same by the issuance of a Writ more particularly, in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ order or direction declaring the same as wholly without jurisdiction., and pass such other further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case while awarding costs of these proceedings to the petitioner and render justice….”

2. The writ petition No.25556 of 2006 is instituted under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying the relief as under :-

“……to issue a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling upon records pertaining to I.D No.135 of 2003 dated 30.6.2006 which was published in G.O.Rt.No.1839, Labour Employment Training Factories (Lab.I) Department dated 29.8.2006 and to set aside the same as arbitrary, illegal and against principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service and with all other attendant benefits and to pass such other order or orders….”

3. The petitioner-Company in the writ petition No.21411 of 2006, had challenged the award dated 30.11.2006 in I.D No.135 of 2003 passed by the 1st respondent by invoking Section 2 -A(2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’). Dissatisfied with the very same award, the respondent No.2-Workman, had also filed W.P No.25556 of 2006 and sought his reinstatement with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages.

4. Since, these are cross-writ petitions, the petitioner in W.P No.21411 of 2006 and respondent No.2 in W.P No.25556 of 2006; and petitioner in W.P No.25556 of 2006 and respondent No.2 in W.P No.21411 of 2006, are referred by their nomenclature as arrayed before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur (hereafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) for the sake of convenience i.e.,‘Management’ and ‘Workman’ respectively.

Case of the Workman:-

5. The Workman filed I.D No.130 of 2003 by invoking Section 2 -A(2) of ‘Act’ before the Tribunal to pass an award holding that discharge/termination order dated 10.03.2003, passed against him by the Management as illegal.

6. The Workman was appointed in the year 1979 and his services were confirmed in the year 1980. Thereafter, in view of time to time promotions in the Company, the Workman was promoted to Charge Hand way back in 1990. Further escalated to the Senior Charge Hand and discharging his duties from 01.07.1995 by drawing the salary of Rs.9,043/- p.m.

7. In a nutshell, th