The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to determine the main work performed by an employee to ascertain if they fall within the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act. The judgment also emphasized the distinction between technical work and professional work, stating that a professional cannot be termed as a workman under the law.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Sri Multan Sewa Samiti, a charitable eye hospital, has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the award dated 3rd November, 1995 passed by the Labour Court in ID No. 112/1991. The aforesaid proceedings were initiated at the behest of Dr. A.K. Gupta, the respondent No. 3 herein.

2. The petitioner herein is a society and has set up and is running a hospital in Farash Khana, Old Delhi. It is the contention of the petitioner that they were/are a charitable society and were/are dependent upon monetary contributions received from members and non- member volunteers. They have set up a small hospital in an economically backward and congested area in the walled city.

3. The respondent No. 3 is a doctor and was appointed as a Resident Surgeon on 1st April, 1980. It is claimed that he was promoted as Junior Surgeon in 1981 and was performing operations in the hospital and eye camps organized by the management. His services were terminated on 30th May, 1990. The allegation of the respondent No. 3 is that the Medical Superintendent Dr. B.N. Khanna wanted his son Dr. R. Khanna to be appointed as a Medical Superintendent superseding the respondent No. 3. Thus, the services of respondent No. 3 were terminated.

4. Before the Labour Court, it was alleged that the petitioner had flouted the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act, for short) as retrenchment compensation, notice period pay, etc., was not paid. It was wrongly stated that the financial grant had been withheld and, therefore, services of the respondent No. 3 were being terminated. It was also alleged that his juniors like Dr. R. Khanna, Dr. Bakshi etc. continued to remain in employment.

5. By the impugned award, the Labour Court has held that the respondent was a workman as per Section 2(s) of the Act. It has been held that there was violation of Section 25F as retrenchment compensation and notice pay was not tendered with the notice served upon the workman terminating his services. The plea of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 had failed to collect notice pay and retrenchment compensation as per notice dated 30th May, 1990 was rejected. It has been accordingly held that the services of respondent No. 3 were illegally and unjustifiably terminated. The respondent No.3, is entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

6. On the filing of the present writ petition, vide order dated 1st May, 1996 operation of the impugned award was stayed and the stay has continued. The respondent No. 3 had filed an application under Section 17B of the Act but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19th January, 1998. Later on another application under Section 17B of the Act being CM No. 9068/1998 was filed but the same it is apparent was not pressed and Rule was issued on 15th February, 2000. The matter was referred to Continuous Lok Adalat to explore possibility of settlement but without success and positive results. Before me also, the parties had made an attempt to settle the matter but it did not fructify.

7. The term workman has been defined in Section 2(s) of the Act, which reads:-

“Section 2. Definitions

xxx

(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 in the police servi