The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to focus on the primary and predominant duties of a person in determining their status as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the relevance of evidence and material on record in establishing the status of a workman.

Headnote:
Workman - Industrial Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(s), Section 18(1) r/w section 2(p) - [Food Corporation of India Workers' Union vs Food Corporation of India and another (1996) 9 SCC 439), The Workmen and others vs M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. (1984) 1 SCC 728), Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (2010) 3 SCC 192), Ved Prakash Gupta vs M/s Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. (1984) 2 SCC 569), Shankar Chakravarti vs Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and another (1979) 3 SCC 371), Chandrashekhar Chintaman Vaidya vs National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., Akola (2010 3 Mah L.J. 434), Shaukat Adam Malim vs Kokan Mercantile Co-operative Bank, Ltd. and others (2002 (4) L.L.N. 798)] - The court discussed the nature of duties, burden of proof, and the relevance of designation in determining the status of a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court emphasized the need to focus on the primary and predominant duties of the person and not go by mere nomenclature or occasional entrustment of supervisory, managerial, or administrative work. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence and material on record in determining the status of a workman and emphasized that the burden of proof becomes irrelevant once both parties have led their evidence.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the award made by the Labour Court, which held that the petitioner was not a workman as defined in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore, the reference was not maintainable. The petitioner contended that the Labour Court failed to decide all the issues and ignored overwhelming evidence that established the petitioner was a workman.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Labour Court failed to apply the principles established in previous judgments and misdirected itself in law. The court set aside the impugned award and directed the Labour Court to dispose of the reference expeditiously within three months. The employer was ordered to pay costs to the petitioner for delaying the adjudication on merits.
Issues: The issues included the determination of the petitioner's status as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the failure of the Labour Court to decide all issues, and the delay in adjudication on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to focus on the primary and predominant duties of the person and not go by mere nomenclature or occasional entrustment of supervisory, managerial, or administrative work. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence and material on record in determining the status of a workman and emphasized that the burden of proof becomes irrelevant once both parties have led their evidence.
Final Decision: The impugned award was set aside, and the case was restored to the file of the Labour Court for expeditious disposal. The employer was ordered to pay costs to the petitioner for delaying the adjudication on merits.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Shivraj Gaonkar for the petitioner. The respondents though served, neither appeared through any representative nor any Advocate. Since the petition concerns the dues payable to a workman and has been pending since the year 2010, it is not possible to adjourn the matter any further.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the award dated 26.05.2010 made by the Labour Court-II, Government of Goa at Panaji in Case No. Ref. IT/92/07 holding that the petitioner herein was not a workman as defined in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (said Act), and therefore, the reference was not maintainable.

3. Mr. Gaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset pointed out that the Labour Court was not justified in deciding only the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents (employer). He submits that the Labour Court in the matter of this nature, was duty bound to decide all the issues which arose in the matter.

4. Mr. Gaonkar submits that in any case, the impugned Judgment and Order is vitiated by perversity and contains errors apparent on the face of the record. He submits that mere nomenclature as “accounts supervisor” can never be conclusive in determining whether the petitioner was indeed a workman or not. He submits that detailed pleadings as also evidence about the nature of duties discharged by the petitioner have been completely ignored by the Labour Court. He points out that even the admissions in the evidence of Zarine Lobo, Human Resources Executive of the employer have been ignored. He submits that there is overwhelming evidence on record that establishes that the petitioner was indeed a workman and all such evidence has been ignored by the Labour Court. He relies on Food Corporation of India Workers' Union vs Food Corporation of India and another (1996) 9 SCC 439), The Workmen and others vs M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. (1984) 1 SCC 728), Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (2010) 3 SCC 192), Ved Prakash Gupta vs M/s Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. (1984) 2 SCC 569), Shankar Chakravarti vs Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and another (1979) 3 SCC 371), Chandrashekhar Chintaman Vaidya vs National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., Akola (2010 3 Mah L.J. 434), Shaukat Adam Malim vs Kokan Mercantile Co-operative Bank, Ltd. and others (2002 (4) L.L.N. 798) in support of his submissions.

5. Since the respondents were not represented, with the assistance of Mr. Gaonkar, I have gone through the entire record as well as the impugned Judgment and Award. The contentions raised on behalf of the employer before the Labour Court are taken as the contentions now raised before me on behalf of the employer.

6. Normally, in matters of this nature, the Labour Court, should endeavor to dispose of all the issues which arise before it rather than to decide the matter based only on the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the employer. Particularly in this matter, the Labour Court, ought to have adopted this approach because the entire claim of the petitioner was for an amount of Rs.40,000/- or thereabouts, which the petitioner had claimed was unauthorizedly deducted from the salary and other emoluments payable to him. In fact, there were admissions in the evidence of Zarine Lobo that no enquiry was ever conducted against the petitioner before proceeding to deduct this amount from the salary and other emoluments payable to the petitioner. Therefore, nothing prevented the Labour Court from deciding both the preliminary objection as well as the merits of the case in a matter of this nature. The employer cannot be permitted to tire out the workmen in this manner. Since the Labour Court failed to decide the issue on merits, even if the Labour Court is now reversed, the matter will have to go back to the Labour Court for a decision on merits. The dispute is pending since 2007 and at least in a matter of this nature, the Labour Court was duty-bound to decide all the issues together rather

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Bom) 99

The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to focus on the primary and predominant duties of a person in determining their status as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the relevance of evidence and material on record in establishing the status of a workman.

Cases Referred (7)