MARKANDEYA KATJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24. 2. 2003 by which the writ petition has been dismissed. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 2 ) THE facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single judge. Hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.

( 3 ) THE respondents 2 and 3 in this appeal were employed by the appellant. As held by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors. , AIR 1978 SC 538, they have to be held as workmen under the industrial Disputes Act. Against the termination of their services they raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal which held that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents were on probation and hence their services could be terminated without inquiry. In our opinion, the basic flaw in this argument is that it relies on a principle of service law, whereas we are concerned with industrial law. The principle of one branch of law cannot be automatically applied in another branch.

( 5 ) IN service law there is an important difference between a temporary employee and a permanent employee. A permanent employee has a right to the post whereas a temporary employee does not, vide State of U. P, v. Kaushal Kishore sltukla, (1991) I SCC 691. However, there is no such distinction in industrial law. It may be noted that the Industrial Disputes Act makes no distinction between a permanent employee and a temporary employee (whether a probationer, casual, daily wage or adhoc employee ).

( 6 ) THE definition of workman in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act states that a workman means-"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 purposes 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.- (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45)of 1950), or the Army employee of a person, or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a person, or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or (iv) who being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceedings 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. "

( 7 ) A perusa! of the above definition shows that there is no distinction in industrial law between a permanent employee and a temporary employee. As long as the person is employed to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, he is a workman under the industrial Disputes Act, and will get the benefits of that Act.

( 8 ) THUS, it has been held in Chief Engineer (Irrigation) Chepauk, Madras v. N. Natesan, (1973) II LLJ 446 (447) (Mad.) and in Management of Crompton engineering Co. (Madras) Private Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Additional Labour court, (1974) I LLJ 459 (Mad.) that even a temporary employee falls within the definition of workman. Similarly in Elumalai v. Management of Simplex Concrete piles (India) Ltd. , (1970) II LLJ 454 and -Tapan Kumar Jena v. General manager, Calcutta Telephones. (1981) Lab. I. C. (NOC) 68 (Cal.) (DB) it was held that a casual employee is also a workman. In other words, every person employed in an industry, irrespective of whet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document