JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 31st May, 2018 whereby the learned Labour Court rejected the statement of claim of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute against the respondents on the averments that he was in the permanent and continuous employment of the respondent since 01st December, 2014; he was designated as a General Manager but he never performed managerial, supervisory and administrative nature of duties during his tenure; the primary, basic and dominant nature of duties of the workman were to generate regular reports; preparation of sketches; preparing “Request for quotation” with drawings to call the contractors to get quotations and then preparing comparative statement, analysis of rates; preparing “Note for record” for approval, preparing “Letter of Intent”; preparing contractor’s agreement technical portion of approval and submitting the same to his superior, Mr. Sanjeev Suri, Regional Head of Engineering; taking of measurements at site and other miscellaneous jobs; the workman was never authorized to take any independent decision and there was no subordinate staff working under him; the workman during his tenure of service performed his duties with utmost dedication, sincerity and honesty; he had a flawless record of service to his credit; no job description was issued to the workman and the duties performed by him were purely clerical, technical, manual etc; initially, the workman was employed on probation for a period of six months which was to be confirmed on completion of the probation period; the petitioner is a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act; his last drawn wages were Rs.4,00,000/-per month and the respondent has not paid the performance incentive at the rate of 20.2% of the salary since the date of joining; the respondent instead of appreciating the petitioner started harassing the petitioner and pressurized him to either submit resignation or face dire consequences which was not accepted by the petitioner who made a complaint dated 27th May, 2015 to the Director of the respondent; the respondent illegally terminated the petitioner’s services on 16th June, 2015 on the ground that the performance in the probation period was not found satisfactory; the termination is illegal and violative of Section 25(h) of the Industrial Disputes Act; the petitioner issued a demand notice dated 23rd October, 2015 to the respondent which was replied on 04th December, 2015; the petitioner is not gainfully employed since the date of his termination; and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages along with all consequential benefits.

3. Respondent No.1 filed the written statement in which a preliminary objection was raised on the ground that the petitioner was working as a General Manager at last drawn salary of Rs.4,00,000/-per month and was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act; the petitioner was entrusted with managerial, administrative and supervisory work described in his job description; the petitioner was responsible to supervise, manage and ensure that all resources for the project are available as per plan to meet deadlines; the petitioner was responsible to supervise the works and ensure that the quality and safety standards are maintained while achieving time and cost targets fixed on a weekly and monthly basis and also responsible for ensuring statutory compliances on site; the petitioner was responsible to maintain excellent working relations with the contractors by properly supervising various work contracts assigned to the contractors and to make sure that the work progresses as per the timeline fixed and upto the standard and quality as prescribed.

4. The following issues were framed by the Labour Court on 14th October, 2016;-

“(i) Whether the claimant is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (a