Back
GAURANG KANTH
Food Corporation Of India – Appellant
Versus
Govt. Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
GAURANG KANTH, J.
1. The present Writ Petition emanates from the judgment dated 10.05.1988 (“Impugned Award”) passed by Respondent No. 2, the Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi, in I.D. No. 138 of 1980 titled as Workmen through the General Secretary, Employees Union v. The Managing Director, Food Corporation of India.
2. In this matter, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned Award more than 3 decades back. Earlier vide Judgment dated 05.08.2011, this Court dismissed the present writ petition. Thereafter, the Petitioner challenged the said Judgment dated 05.08.2011 before the Hon’ble Division Bench. Vide order dated 16.07.2015 in LPA No. 697/2012, the Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the said Judgment of this Court and remanded the matter back to this Court for fresh adjudication. The Respondent/Union challenged the said Order of the Hon’ble Division Bench before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 30357/2015. The Hon’ble Supreme court vide order dated 17.04.2017 disposed of the said SLP by upholding the decision of the Hon’b
Assistant Managers of Food Corporation, due to managerial roles and exceeding salary, are not considered 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act, impacting their entitlement to selection grades.
The determination of whether an employee is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act is based on the actual duties performed, emphasizing that titles or managerial roles do not exclude individuals....
The appellant, appointed in a managerial role and performing legal duties, was not considered a 'Workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, and thus not entitled to relief under Section 25F.
The definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act excludes managerial employees, and the High Court cannot re-evaluate evidence in writ proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and its application to the case at ha....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and its application to determine the jurisdict....
The burden of proof regarding the status of an employee as a 'workman' lies with the employee, not the employer, as per the Industrial Disputes Act.
Section 33(C)(1) of I.D.Act deals with situation where money is due to a workman under a settlement or an award.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
