Back
Karnataka High Court
THUNGABHADRA SUGAR WORKS P.LTD., MANAGEMENT - Appellant
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT - Respondent
Decided On : 09-21-82
W.A. : 716 of 1981
workman - Industrial Dispute - S. 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act - [S. 2 (s)] - The court discussed the definition of 'workman' under S. 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, emphasizing the need for an employment relationship in an industry to claim the status of a workman. The court highlighted the importance of establishing the existence of an employer-employee relationship and the nature of work performed for hire or reward. The judgment referenced the observations of the Supreme Court in Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra, emphasizing the essential condition of employment for a person to be considered a workman within the Act's definition.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between the Management of thungabhadra Sugar Works (P) Ltd. and R. Srinivasa Murthy, who claimed to be a workman under the Industrial Dispute Act. The management terminated Srinivasa Murthy's training period, leading to an industrial dispute referred to the Labour Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Court had not applied its mind to the area of controversy between the parties and had not recorded any finding regarding the existence of the relationship of employer and employee. The court set aside the order of the learned single Judge and quashed the findings recorded by the Labour Court on the preliminary issues, remitting the case to the Labour Court for expedited disposal of all issues.
Issues: The main issue was whether Srinivasa Murthy qualified as a workman under the Industrial Dispute Act, focusing on the existence of an employer-employee relationship and the nature of work performed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to establish an employment relationship in an industry to claim the status of a workman under the Industrial Dispute Act, referencing the definition of 'workman' under S. 2 (s) and the observations of the Supreme Court in Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the learned single Judge was set aside. The case was remitted to the Labour Court for expedited disposal of all issues, and the second respondent was awarded costs from the appellant.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the Management of thungabhadra Sugar Works (P) Ltd. , harige, Shimoga challenging the order made by the learned single Judge in WP no. 21798 of 1980.
( 2 ) THE undisputed facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows : the second respondent R. Srinivasa murthy was issued with a memo by the management as per Annexure-A to the effect that he is taken as a Trainee in the factory for the crushing season 1971 72 on a monthly stipend of Rs. 100 and that he should report for training immediately. The second respondent having accepted the offer, reported to the management in accordance with the memo. After lapse of some time, Srinivasa Murthy wrote a letter as per Annexure-C to the management requesting that he be confirmed as supervisory A2 Grade and given provident fund benefit. He has stated in that letter that he ts a trainee Engineer working since 3 years and 2 months ; that he has bees sincerely discharging his duties in the engineering Department as a Mechanical engineer Trainee during the said period and that he has worked in workshop and shifts. He has further stated that he has not got any grade or the benefit of provident fund and that he has been putting forth his full initiative and interest in all types of work. He has also mentioned that his colleague; who joined with him are already confirmed in Supervisory A2 grade and Provident Fund benefit has been given to them. According to him, he has all the qualifications and service justifying the relief sought for by him. On receipt of the said letter of request from Srinivasa Murthy, the Management made an order below that stating that they have no suitable vacancy and that his training period is terminated from the end of the month. According to Srinivasa murthy, he stood terminated with effect from 18-5-1975. Whereupon, he raised an industrial dispute which came to be referred to the Labour Court, Mangalore in ref. No. 28 of 1978.
( 3 ) BEFORE the Labour Court, the Management raised a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction, inter alia contending that Srinivasa Murthy is only a trainee and not a workman as defined under the industrial Disputes Act and that therefore the reference is not competent. Srinivasa murthy, however took the land that he is a workman and that the reference is competent. Having regard to the contentions of the parties, relevant issues 1, 2 and 5 were framed by the Labour Court. They were heard and disposed of as preliminary issues and findings arc recorded by the Labour Court as per Annexure F dt. 3rd June 1980. The Labour Court has recorded a finding to he effect that Srinivasa murthy is a workman and that therefore, he reference is competent. It is the preliminary findings recorded by the labour Court in this behalf that were challenged by the Management in WP No. 21798 of 1980. The learned single Judge having dismissed the said writ petition, the Management has come up with this appeal.
( 4 ) THE first question for consideration is a to what is the real area of controversy between the parties Whereas the management contends that the second respondent is not a workman, it is asserted by Srinivasa Murthy that he is a workman as defined in S. 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute. Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). In the objections raised before the Labour Court, the positive stand taken by the Management is that Srinivasa murthy was only a trainee and that therefore he cannot be regarded as a workman. On a perusal of the objections raised by the Management we also notice that there is a positive assertion to the effect that there is no relationship of employei and employee between the Management and Srinivasa murthy. Sri Krishnaiah learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, however, contended that in matters like this, we should not be indulgent in avour of the Management and that we should not permit them to enlarge the scope of the enquiry by arguing points which have not been canv
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
