JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---The only question raised in the present writ petition and that needs consideration is: whether the petitioner John Joseph Khokar is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. The said question arises from the facts which briefly stated are: The petitioner was appointed in the Mazgaon Dock Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act having its factory at Dockyard Road, Mazgaon, Bombay -- 2nd Respondent on 10th April, 1968 as Fitter-Weapon in the Weapon and Electronic Department. On 1-2-1970 he was promoted as Weapon Mechanic Grade II. He was then promoted as highly skilled employee on 1-6-72. Further promotion was accorded to the petitoner on 2-12-1975 in Special Marine Grade and thereafter as Mistry on 1-6-1976. The next promotional post from Mistry is Chargehand and Petitioner alleges that one post of Chargehand fell vacant on 1-4-86. On 19-11-87 Shri K.D. Lodh, the 3rd respondent was promoted on the post of chargehand w.e.f 1-12-86 though according to petitioner, the respondent No. 3 was much junior to him and was also promoted as Mistry much later than him. The Petitioner filed the complaint before the Industrial Court, Mumbai under Item-9, Schedule-IV, of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ('MRTU PULP ACT') challenging the said action of respondent No.2 and it was prayed that it be declared that the 2nd respondent herein has indulged in unfair labour practice and may be directed to promote the Petitioner to the post of chargehand in Weapon and Electronics Department w.e.f. 1-12-1986. The said complaint was contested by the Respondent No.2 herein and one of the objections raised was that petitioner was not workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act since he was doing supervisory work and holding supervisory post and, therefore, complaint was not maintainable and petitioner was not entitled to any relief in the complaint. After recording the evidence the Industrial Court was persuaded by the objection raised by the respondent No. 2 herein and it held that petitioner was not workman, though on merits it held that the petitioner was senior most employee and his name was also recommended by departmental head to the authorities for giving promotion to him; but since petitioner was not held workman the complaint was dismissed.

3. Mr. Vaidya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner stoutly urged that on the basis of the evidence on record it was clear that Petitioner was technical hand and he was engaged as Mistry in Weapon and Electronics Department and with the help of the Workers he used to do the job of installation of weapon equipments in various shifts and , therefore, he was workman under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. In support of his contentions Mr. Vaidya relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in (National Engineering Industries. appellant v. Shri Kishan Bhageria Ors. respondents)1, (1988)I C.L.R. 290, and (Arkal Govind Raj Rao and Ciba Geigy of India Ltd., Bombay)2, 1985(2) Bom.C.R. 346. He also relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in (Inter Globe Air Transport, A Division of Inter Globe Enterprises (Private), Ltd. and Smt. Leela Deshpande and another)3, 1994(2) Bom.C.R. 596.

4. Mr. Rele, on the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and urged that on the face of the averments made in the complaint, the petitioner cannot be said to be workman. He referred to the complaint extensively wherein petitioner pleaded that he was doing supervisory job. He also urged that from the evidence led by the petitioner as well as 2nd respondent, it was clearly established that petitioner was not a workman and he was engaged in supervisory job. Mr. Rele. thus supported the reasoning given by the Industrial Court and to buttres

Click Here to Read the rest of this document