P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS Special Civil Application is to quash and set aside Award dated 6-2-1985 given by the Presiding Officer Labour Court Rajkot in Reference LCR No. 347 of 1982. The petitioner further prays that he must be declared as a workman within the meaning of sec. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Before the Labour Court. Rajkot before which a dispute was raised as to whether the petitioner who is the Junior Engineer must be reinstated to his original post with full backwages a preliminary objection was -raised to the effect that the petitioner is not a workman since he is drawing a pay of more than Rs. 1000. 00 and was also discharging supervisory duties. The Labour Court addressed itself to the fact as to whether the petitioner is a workman as defined under sec. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act in as much as he draws a salary of more than Rs. 1000. 00 per month. It is an admitted fact that the salary of the petitioner was Rs. 1 500 per month and according to sec. 2 (s) (iv) if a person draws wages exceeding Rs. 1 600 per month he cannot be said to be a workman but this figure or Rs. 1 600 was inserted in sec. 2 (s) (iv) only by the amended Act 46 of 1982. Prior to this amendment the figure was Rs. 1 0 and such of those who are receiving the wages exceeding Rs 1 0 will not come under the definition of workman. The State of Gujarat by amending Act 22 of 1981 which was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette of 25/06/1981 amended certain provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and while doing so it also inserted sec. 4 in that amending Act which reads as follows:"4 In the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 in its application to the State of Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) in section 2 in clause (s) in sub-clause (iv ). for the words five hundred the words one thousand six hundred shall be substituted". This Act received the assent of the President on 21/06/1981 and it further states that this Act will come into force on such date as the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint. It is seen from the Official Gazette that this amendment was given effect to with effect from 1-8-1981. Thus it is clear that on the date when the reference was made the amended Act 22 of 1981 was in force. This has been overlooked by the Labour Court. Presumably the Labour Court has taken into consideration the amendment carried out by the Central Government in respect of sec. 2 (s) by its Act 46 of 1982 which came into effect as and from 21-8-1982. As far as the State of Gujarat is concerned as we have noticed already such an amendment came as early as 25/06/1981 and came into effect as and from 1-8-1981. If that be so the Labour Court is wrong in rejecting the reference on the preliminary ground as if the petitioner is not a workman as defined under sec. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

( 2 ) MR. Raval the learned counsel for the respondent alternatively contended that even if it is held that on the date of the reference the amended provision had already come into force with effect from 1 even then no valid reference could have been made in the present case as on the date on which the dispute arose viz. when the petitioners services were terminated on 30/06/1981 the amended provision was not applicable and therefore the petitioner was not a workman at least on the date on which his services were terminated. This submission of Mr. Raval cannot be accepted for the simple reason that as per the definition of the workman under sec. 2 (s) any person who has been dismissed discharged or retrenched in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute is also included within the connotation of the word workman. What is important and relevant is the date of reference. As on that date the requisite conditions of the definition of the term workman as per sec. 2 (s) have to be satisfied. Even this question is no longer res integra. In the case of Workmen G. C. and Co. v. G.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document