JUDGMENT - F.I. REBELLO, J.:---The petitioner workman had filed a complaint bearing No. 419 of 1994 before the 4th Labour Court at Thane. The respondent Company raised a preliminary issue that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such the complaint ought to be dismissed on that count alone. On a preliminary issue being framed, the respondent Company examined two witnesses, petitioner did not examine any witness nor stepped into the witness box. By order dated 31st March, 1995, the Labour Court on a consideration of material before it and various judgments which are referred to in the order came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not doing work which is of a supervisory nature and consequently answered the issue in the negative. It held the petitioner to be workman.

2. Aggrieved by the said Order, the respondent Company preferred a revision application bearing No. 76 of 1995 before the Industrial Court at Thane. The Industrial Court reappreciated the evidence. The Industrial Court further held that while holding that the petitioner was a workman the Labour Court had given emphasis on the point that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document