( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 6. 12. 2005 passed by Labour Court-IV, Karkardooma, Delhi.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that respondent/ workman was appointed as a printer with the petitioner on 26. 12. 1976 at Calcutta. He was confirmed as printer on 1. 4. 1977. Thereafter, he was promoted and transferred to Ahmedabad as a Night Supervisor with effect from 21. 7. 1978. He was transferred from ahmedabad to Delhi office of the petitioner on 14. 1. 1980 as a Night Supervisor. Respondent was charged with misconduct. The allegations of the petitioner against the respondent were that on 16. 7. 1986 respondent insulted Mr. M. M. Srivastava, Administrative Manager in presence of other staff. A charge sheet was issued to the respondent on 29. 7. 1986 about misconduct and indiscipline. After receipt of the charge sheet respondent, on 2. 8. 1986, entered into the room of Mr. Srivastava and abused and threatened him and was about to physically assault him but was restrained from doing so by some of the staff members. The reply to the charge sheet dated 29. 7. 1986 submitted by the respondent was considered unsatisfactory and the service of the respondent was terminated on 28. 8. 1986. He was given one month's salary in lieu of notice. Respondent challenged the termination of his services, as a result following dispute was referred by the appropriate government for adjudication to the Labour Court:-"whether the termination of services of Shri Yadeshwar Kumar is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard "

( 3 ) THE petitioner in response to the claim of the respondent took the stand that respondent was not a workman. He was working in Supervisory capacity. There were a number of watchmen working under him and he used to supervise their work. Whenever any overtime work was to be taken from the watchmen, respondent used to instruct the watchmen about overtime work and he had full authority to pass their overtime slips. He used to exercise this authority very often. He used to recommend or reject leave of the watchmen working under him. Respondent had the power to allot duties to watchmen. He was responsible for the safety of the property of the company during all the three shifts. He represented the management during the departmental enquiries. His pay was fixed in the administrative and supervisory cadre. He had also officiated as Press Superintendent for some time. Respondent was not allotted any clerical or manual duty nor he performed any clerical or manual work. He was drawing a total salary of Rs. 1977/ -.

( 4 ) ON the basis of pleadings of the parties, Labour Court framed an issue "whether respondent was a workman or not within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act" Labour Court decided the reference as well as issue of workman against the petitioner. The Labour Court observed that the management has failed to prove the misconduct.

( 5 ) IN order to find out whether an employee is a workman or not , the court has to look into the definition of the workman under Section 2 (s) of the industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short the 'act') which reads as under:-"2 (s) "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 Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii)who is employed mainly in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document