2006 Supreme(Cal) 767

High Court Of Calcutta
Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.
HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
FOURTH INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - Respondent
W. P. 9865 (W) Of 2005
Decided On : 12/04/2006

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - REFERENCE - MAINTAINABILITY - RETIRED EMPLOYEES - WORKMAN - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - CORRIGENDUM - VALIDITY - Held, the dispute raised by retired employees cannot be termed as an industrial dispute and retired employees cannot be said to be workmen as per the definition of the word 'workman' in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner company challenged the order of reference made by the State Government under Section 10 read with Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the ground that the dispute raised by the retired employees was not an industrial dispute and that the retired employees could not be said to be workmen as defined under the Act. The petitioner also challenged the validity of a corrigendum issued by the State Government deleting the words 'read with Section 2A' from the order of reference.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the dispute raised by the retired employees could not be termed as an industrial dispute as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, since the retired employees did not fall within the definition of 'workman' under the Act. The Court also held that the corrigendum issued by the State Government was not proper and could not be encouraged, but since the order of reference itself was illegal, no further discussion on the dispute with regard to the issuance of the corrigendum was required.

Issues: 1. Whether the dispute raised by the retired employees can be termed as an industrial dispute? 2. Whether the retired employees can be said to be workmen as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 3. Whether the corrigendum issued by the State Government deleting the words 'read with Section 2A' from the order of reference was valid?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'industrial dispute' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, contemplates a dispute between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person. 2. The definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, includes any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or who being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature. 3. A retired employee is not a 'workman' as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore cannot raise an industrial dispute.

Final Decision: The order of reference dated 06.02.2002 was held to be illegal and bad in law and was set aside. The proceedings before the learned Tribunal which had taken place so far were quashed. However, this order would not prevent the respondent Nos. 3 to 54 from approaching the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance if any.