MADAN B. LOKUR, J.

( 1 ) THE Petitioner is aggrieved by an Award dated 20th December 1977 passed by the Additional Labour Court in ID No. 150 of 1977 wherein it was held that the Petitioner is not a "workman". Consequently, it was held that there was no industrial dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent-Management.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, the Petitioner reached the age of superannuation and, therefore, even if the Award is set aside, in view of the long lapse of time, it would be an unnecessary burden on both parties to remand the controversy for a decision on merits, that is on the question whether the Petitioner s services were validly terminated or not. Since reinstatement of the Petitioner in service with the Respondent-Management cannot be ordered, at best, the only question that can arise, even if the Petitioner succeeds in the Labour Court on remand, is about the quantum of compensation or back wages that may be due to him. It is on this basis that I heard learned counsel for the parties, and proceed to decide this writ petition.

( 3 ) THE issue referred for adjudication to the learned Additional Labour Court was as follows: --

"whether dismissal of Shri K. H. Pandhi is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect. "

( 4 ) AT the relevant time, the Petitioner was working as an accountant on a salary of about Rs. 715. 00 per month. He was employed on or about 15th April 1974 and was dismissed from service by a letter dated 5th November 1975. In other words, the Petitioner, who had done his B. Com. , was employed with the Respondent-Management for about a year and a half.

( 5 ) NOTICE of the reference was sent to the Petitioner as well as to the Respondent-Management but the Respondent-Management refused to accept the notice and was, therefore, proceeded against ex parte under Rule 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.

( 6 ) IT appears that while the Petitioners evidence was being recorded, a Court question was asked regarding his nature of work. The learned Additional Labour Court has paraphrased his reply and the relevant portion of the Award delivered by the learned Additional Labour Court in this regard reads as follows: --

". . . he says that he has not passed any other course of accountancy but his duties were to write accounts and to prepare related statements of accounts. He used to make entries of the vouchers in the account books. He was the only accountant in Delhi. He says that Chief Accountant and Chartered Accountant used to come in Delhi periodically from Patna and he used to perform accountancy work at Delhi according to their guidelines. He also used to deal with cash. He used to keep cash with him. This used to be under the supervision of Technical Director. He also used to deposit money in the Bank and take out money from the Bank. But cheques were issued by Technical Director. He used to prepare daily account of cash in hand that is cash received and cash spent and to send this daily report to the head office. The Technical Director used to check these daily reports and sign them. Technical Director used to authorise the issue of all the vouchers for payments and then only they could be entertained by him. "

( 7 ) THE learned Additional Labour Court noted in the impugned Award that the Petitioner also used to handle stationery and keep its stock and receipt.

( 8 ) ON these facts, and relying on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in M/s Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs. The Presiding Officer, 1976 Lab. I. C. 918, the learned Additional Labour Court came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act) and, therefore, the dispute raised by the Petitioner is not an industrial dispute, thereby making the reference incompetent.

( 9 ) THE first question that has to be decided is whether the Peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document