Suresh Kait, J.

W.P.(C) 3256/2013

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the award dated 31.12.2012, passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi, (in short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- each has been directed to be paid in favour of the respondents No. 1 and 2/workmen.

2. Case of the petitioner Airlines as averred in the petition is that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were employed with the petitioner as Supervisors and were performing supervisory and managerial duties. Their services could be terminated by the petitioner in exercise of powers vested in it under Clause 8.2.4 of the Rules of Employment, on payment of requisite salary in lieu of notice. Having been employed and worked as Supervisors, the respondents No. 1 and 2 did not fall under the definition of ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘ID Act’).

3. The petitioner, therefore, raised a preliminary objection against the statement of claim filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 before the learned Tribunal that the respondents were employed as Supervisors and were exclusively performing supervisory duties and, as such, they were not ‘workman’ with the meaning of Section 2(s) of ID Act, and, therefore, the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the reference or to grant them any relief.

4. Despite, having examined the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the respondents were employed as Supervisors and that their job was to supervise flights etc. There were 13 workmen working under them. The relevant findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are as under:-

“....However, during the course of their cross-examination, they conceded that they used to supervise flights as supervisors. According to them, it was part of their job to supervise flights. They used to assign duties to subordinate employees to carry out different operations in flight handling. Both of them admit that they used to brief employees before arrival of flight. According to them, they used to ensure that all operation of flight handling should be completed within scheduled time so that flight may take off in time. It has been admitted by them that they used to exercise powers to waive excess baggage and upgrade tickets from economic class to business class. They used to write details of overtime work performed by the employees on their attendance sheet. They had verified overtime work performed by the employees on Sheets Ex.WW1/M1 to Ex.WW1/M2, Ex.WW2/M6, Ex.WW2/M7 respectively. According to them they were competent to recommend leaves for their employees. They used to conduct surprise checks of flight handling operations. Shri Baretto admits that letter Ex.WW1/7 was signed by him for the Station Manager. He had signed Ex.WW1/M8 to Ex.WW1/M$ for the Airlines. Both of them candidly admit that telephone facilities were provided by the Airlines at their residence.”

5. Based on the evidence noted above, the learned Tribunal in paras 25 and 26 of the impugned order recorded as under:-

“25. When facts unfolded by the claimants, Shri Parvez Khan and Shri G.Rajkumar are closely appreciated, it came to light that the claimants were entrusted with supervisory duties (functional responsibility and the disciplinary authority) on employees upto Group E-2 and entrusted with more complex task within the scope of work of employees of Group E-2 combined with functional responsibilities and/or functional authority for employees upto Group E-2, besides supervisory duties towards passenger/cargo sales, passenger/cargo service and station operations. To perform these duties, claimants were allocating duties to 13 employees working under them. They used to supervise work of those employees. Claimants supervise flights in their capacity of supervisors. They used to assign duties in respect of flight handling operations to the emp