JUDGMENT - Abhyankar, J.

(1) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the orders of two authorities under C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act. 1947. Respondent No.1 Motilal claimed to be an employee of the petitioner-company since November 1956. The Petitioner-company was doing the business of motor transport. According to Motilal, he was employed as a Checker by the company since 15-11-1956. His services were terminated orally from 1-6-1957 without any enquiry and without any justification. Motilal claimed that he was employed on a salary of Rs. 40/- per month and he was given Rs.3/- per day as bhatta to do work as a Checker. He, therefore, filed an application on 30th of October 1957 before the Additional District Magistrate,. who was the officer then empowered to exercise the powers of an Assistant Commissioner of Labour under section 16 of the C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. It appears, the petitioner remained absent at one hearing and the case proceeded ex parte. Thereafter the petitioner appeared and filed its written statement. Before that authority Motilal examined himself and was also cross-examined. On behalf of the petitioner one Dr. M.A. Aziz Yarmohammad, who claimed to be the Managing Partner of the petitioner-company examined himself. The Additional District Magistrate, by his order dated 4th of August, 1960, held that Motilal was employed by the petitioner-company as a checker and his discharge was illegal and not according to law. He, therefore, held that the termination of the services of Motilal was wrongful and he ordered that Motilal be paid back wages from the month of April 1957 at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month and also be reinstated.

(2) Against this order both the petitioner as well as the employee Motilal preferred revisions before the State Industrial Court. The petitioners revision was numbered as Industrial Revision No. 74 of 1960 and that of Motilal as Industrial Revision No. 80 of 1960. Ultimately both the revisions failed, but we are concerned with the order in Industrial Revision No. 74 of 1960, filed by the petitioner.

(3) It appears a complaint was made before the State Industrial Court on behalf of the petitioner-company that the Additional District Magistrate had not given a finding on the question whether Motilal was an "employee" within the meaning of section 2(10) of the C.P. and Berai Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, contention of the petitioner being that Motilal was not employed for doing manual or physical work but was employed for doing supervisory duties. The Industrial Court, therefore, by its order dated 19-9-1961 remitted the proceedings to the lower court to record a finding whether in view of the duties of a checker, Motilal was an "employee". The finding was to be certified within a weeks time and the parties were directed to appear before the Additional District Magistrate on 4-10-1961.

(4) When the case was sent back for recording a finding, the requisite authority, viz., the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, recorded the statement of the respondent on 5-10-1961 and also gave a finding on the question whether the petitioners contention that Motilal was not an employee was valid. That finding was against the contention of the petitioner. When the finding was received back by the Industrial Court,. a complaint again seems to have been made by the petitioner that it was not allowed to examine its witnesses. The State Industrial Court, therefore, again remitted the matter for the second time before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour by its order dated 14-11-1961. By this order, which was passed with the consent of parties, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was directed to permit the employer to lead the evidence of a checker whom he desired to examine and after taking into consideration his evidence decide the issue afresh. This was again not a complete disposal of the revision application, but an in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document