The main legal point established in the judgment is that a professional, such as a Legal Assistant, cannot be considered a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. The challenge by the petitioner Bhim Sain is to the Award dated December 10, 2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in I.D No.112/07 whereby the Industrial Tribunal on a finding that the petitioner is not a “workman” within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had not granted any relief to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner initially was appointed as a Junior Clerk with the erstwhile D.E.S.U. He was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk with effect from June 14, 1989. He was selected and appointed as Legal Assistant, a Group-B post on deputation in the Legal Cell. He was permanently absorbed as Legal Assistant vide office order dated January 13, 1995 in the erstwhile D.E.S.U. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The petitioner was found guilty of the charges framed against him and a punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner. It was the case of the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal that the inquiry was conducted in an unfair, corrupt and illegal manner. The petitioner had sought a declaration that the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon him be declared as unauthorized and sought a further direction against the respondent for compensation.

3. At the time of raising the industrial dispute, since the erstwhile D.E.S.U was privatized, the two respondents who were successor of the D.E.S.U/D.V.B were made parties in the industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal.

4. It was the case of the respondent No.1 (Delhi Power Company Ltd.) that the Legal Assistant, the post on which the petitioner was working, is the power of attorney holder given by the department. Being a Power of Attorney Holder the officer has a duty and responsibility to protect the interest of department by properly prosecuting the cases in Court. It is further stated that the petitioner had not taken prompt action in forwarding the comments received by the Law Department on December 13, 1996 from the Executive Engineer and on May 14, 1997 from the Commercial Officer (Bulk Supply) II to the concerned department. It is a case where the petitioner had shirked his responsibility by claiming absence of his immediate superior although the petitioner himself filed documents to show that he was Assistant Legal Officer (ALO). The respondent has also stated that the petitioner being a holder of the post of Legal Assistant in D.V.B, his duties are supervisory in nature. On the aspect of disciplinary proceedings suffice would it be to say that the respondent was justified in imposing the punishment.

5. The Delhi Transco Ltd. has also filed a reply before the Industrial Tribunal wherein it has also stated that the post of Legal Assistant in DVB was a supervisory post and the petitioner could not have approached the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act.

6. Three issues were framed by the Industrial Tribunal, which are as under:

(a) Whether the claimant is a workman within Section 2(2) of the I.D Act.

(b) If answer to issue No.1 is in affirmative whether inquiry conducted against the workman was just, fair and proper.

(c) As per terms of reference.

7. On the issue No.1 the Tribunal has by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Muir Mills Unit of NTC (U.P) Ltd. vs. Swayam Prakash Srivastava & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 491 has held that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act.

8. On the basis of the conclusion against issue No.1, the issue Nos.2 & 3 were not gone into and no relief was given to the petitioner.

9. The petitioner who appeared in person would submit that he is not a professional. According to him as per the delegation, the Superintendent of the Circle and another officer were to act as Nodal Officers for legal cases filed by or against the department. He states that he was not do