An employee holding a supervisory position and performing duties of a supervisory nature is not a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has impugned in the present petition, under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra at Pune on 27 July 1989 in revision application filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order of the Second Labour Court, Pune, on 16 December 1985, in his complaint of unfair labour practice against respondent 1. The petitioner was in the employment of the first respondent as a machinist from 1 September 1970 and was designated as Assistant Supervisor on promotion at the time when his services were terminated with effect from 8 April 1984.

2. Being aggrieved by the said order of termination from employment the petitioner filed a complaint of Unfair Labour Practice under S. 28 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with items (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (1)(f) and (1)(g) of Sch. IV of the Act. The petitioner had challenged the said order of termination on the ground that it was in violation of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with rule 82 framed thereunder. The nub of the petitioner's complaint was that the first respondent-employer had not prepared a seniority list under the rules before passing the impugned order of retrenchment and that he was senior in service and could not be retrenched when three other juniors of his category were retained and continued in the employment. The second limb of his complaint was that at the time of retrenchment he was not offered the amount of retrenchment compensation in accordance with S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the aforesaid basis he prayed for reinstatement with full back-wages and continuity of service. The first respondent employer filed its written statement and contested the claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as he was holding the post of Assistant supervisor and his duties were of Supervisory nature. According to the employer company, he was holding the capacity of a supervisor and was drawing wages exceeding Rs. 1,500 per month. It was therefore contended by the employer-company that his complaint was not maintainable and the same should be dismissed with costs.

3. As far as the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner was senior to the other three Assistant Supervisors, who were continued in employment, is concerned it is the say of the employer-company that the petitioner was in the tool department which was a separate department wherein the petitioner was employed in a separate category of Assistant Supervisor and the other three Junior Assistant Supervisors were employed in other different departments which were not affected by retrenchment of more than 90 workmen from company. It was the case of the employer-company that on account of slack season it had no business and orders, and therefore, it had resorted to lay-off and retrenchment of 90 workmen which resulted in an adverse effect on the tool department and, therefore, it became necessary to terminate the petitioner's employment. The employer-company has denied the charge of unfair labour practice and any colourable exercise or bad faith on its part as against the petitioner. The employer-company had also vehemently denied the charge of victimisation for the trade union activities of the petitioner.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings both the parties adduced their respective oral and documentary evidence before the Labour Court. On the point of the petitioner being a workman he has not led any satisfactory evidence before the Labour Court to show that he was continuing to do the work of machinist and that he squarely fell within the four corners of the definition of workman under S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He ought to have produced his promotion order and also ought to have narrated in detail the work which he was doing to show that his duties