JUDGMENT - KOCHAR R.J., J.:---The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14th July, 1995 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court, Pune in Revision Application (U.L.P.) No. 58 of 1995 which was filed by the respondent company against the judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Labour Court, Pune on 31-5-1995 in the Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 77 of 1995 filed by the petitioner under section 28 read with section 30 and Item 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act). The petitioner complained that his services were terminated by a letter dated 20-3-1995 w.e.f. 22-3-1995 in violation of the provisions of law and that it amounted to an unfair labour practice as aforesaid. He prayed for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service.

2. The respondent company appeared in the complaint and contested by filing its written statement denying all the allegations of unfair labour practice made by the petitioner. It was submitted by the company that the complaint itself was not maintainable as the petitioner was not an employee under section 3(5) of the Act as he was not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent company seriously contested that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the said complaint as the petitioner was employed in the managerial and administrative category. Both the parties adduced their respective oral and documentary evidence before the Labour Court. On the basis of the said material before him the learned Judge held that the petitioner's complaint was maintainable as he was held to be a workman under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently he was an employee under the provisions of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, and therefore his complaint was maintainable. On the merits of the complaint the learned Labour Judge held that the petitioner had proved that the respondent company had engaged in an unfair labour practice as alleged by terminating him from employment. The learned Judge granted the relief of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service with effect from 22-2-1995.

3. The respondent company was aggrieved by the said order and therefore, approached the Industrial Court by filing revision application under section 44 of the Act. The Industrial Court reversed the order of the Labour Court and held that the petitioner was not a workman and not an employee entitled to file a complaint of unfair labour practice under the provisions of M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint by the impugned order.

4. Shri Dharap, the learned Advocate for the petitioner assailed the judgment and order of the Industrial Court on the ground that the Industrial Court had crossed the restricted and limited jurisdiction under section 44 of the Act. Shri Dharap submitted that the Industrial Court has reappreciated, reassessed and reappraised the entire evidence on record on the basis of which the Labour Court had correctly concluded that the petitioner was covered by the definition of workman under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Shri Dharap further contended that the nature of the work performed by the petitioner was predominantly technical and that the managerial duties which the petitioner was required to perform were marginal and incidental. Shri Dharap took me through the evidence to stress the point that the petitioner was designated as maintenance manager and was required to carry out the work of repairs of machines, repairs of translit, installation of machines by his own hands with the help of three/four helpers under him. Shri Dharap further submitted that the petitioner was not employed mainly to perform the managerial or administrative duties but he was performing the duties of technical nature. Shri Dharap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document