Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P. DEVADHAR, J.
Somnath Tulshiram Galande - Appellant
versus
Presiding Officer, II nd Labour Court & Ors. - Respondents
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 294 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7300 OF 2003.
Decided on: January 31, 2008
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(s) and 25-F-Industrial dispute-Appellant was appointed as quality assurance incharge by management-Service of appellant was terminated by management by its letter dated 8.9.1995-Order challenged that he was terminated in violation of Section 25-F of Act-Industrial dispute for adjudication-Labour Court ordered that appellant was neither workman nor he was able to prove that his termination was illegal-Order challenged-Letters Patent Bench set aside order of single Judge and remanded matter to that Court for fresh adjudication-Single Judge again dismissed petition and held that order of Labour Court was not perverse in fact and in law.-The management in the reply filed before the Labour Court had clearly stated that as Quality Assurance incharge, the appellant used to supervise the work of the Quality Control Supervisor directly and the line inspectors working in shift indirectly through the Quality Control Supervisor, take decisions, decide the parameters for the quality check up and analyses the drawings received from the customers.
This was the documentary and oral evidence relied upon by the Labour Court to arrive at a finding that the appellant did not satisfy the ingredients of being a ’workman’ and thus was incapacitated from raising an industrial dispute. It is a settled principle of law that the onus lies upon the workman to prove that he satisfies the essential ingredients of being a workman and,, therefore, could raise an industrial dispute. This is a mixed question of fact and law and unless the finding arrived at by the Labour Court was patently perverse or contrary to law, this Court could hardly disturb the findings of facts in a letters patent appeal.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the learned single Judge dated 13th August, 2007, passed in Writ Petition No. 7300 of 2003, whereby the learned single Judge, while dismissing the petition, has observed that the decision of the Labour Court need not be interfered with under writ jurisdiction as there is no perversity in the conclusions drawn by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has held the appellant not to be a workman.
2. The necessary facts are that according to the appellant he was appointed as Quality Assurance In-charge vide letter of appointment dated 25th April, 1994 , in furtherance to which the appellant joined the post in the pay scale of Rs. 1850-170-2700-200-3700-250-4950. According to the appellant, he was working in the Quality Control Department and was doing inspecting job and related technical and clerical work. However, the services of the appellant were terminated by the management vide its letter dated 8th September, 1995. This action of the respondent-management was challenged by the appellant who claimed to be a ‘ workman’ within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, and, inter alia, pleaded that the services of the appellant were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
3. The appellant raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Second Labour Court for adjudication. The respondent company raised an issue that the appellant was not a workman under Section 2 (s) ofthe Act and the duties of the appellant were managerial and supervisory in nature. The Labour Court after hearing both the parties and the evidence adduced before it came to the conclusion that the appellant was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act and neither did he prove that his termination was illegal, by its award dated 29th August, 2002.
4. Dissatisfied by the above award, the appellant filed writ petition which came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 19th April, 2006. The said order reads as under:
.“Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. No case made out to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. The view taken by the court below is reasonable and possible view.”
5. Aggrieved from the above order of the learned single Judge, the appellant preferred an appeal being being LPA No. 175 of 2006.
The Letters Patent Bench vide its order dated 6th July, 2007, set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 19th April, 2006 and remanded the matter to that Court for fresh hearing and for determination of the issues on merit. After the order of remand, the matter was heard by the learned single Judge and again vide order dated 13th August, 2007 the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The learned single Judge returned a finding affirming the order of the Labour court that the award of the Labour Court was not perverse in fact and in law. It affirmed the finding that the appellant was not a workman. Again aggrieved from the order of the learned single Judge dated 13th August, 2007, the appellant filed the present appeal.
6. In the impugned order, the learned single Judge referred paragraph 7 of the Award of the Labour Court where admission of the workman itself was relied upon. In that statement, the appellant had stated that he was given appointment letter dated 25th April, 1994, original of which was exhibited at Exhibit-29. Once the workman had admitted the document, he could hardly argue contrary to the contents of the said document. Clause (2) of Exh. 29 reads as under:
“2. Being overall responsible for Quality Assurance of the company's products, you are required to set/modify parameters of quality in respect of each product from time to time in terms of customer' sneeds and ensure that these are followed by all concerned subordinates a
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
