Point of Law: Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference, the Labour Court rightly shifted the burden on assertion by the petitioner that he is not fulfilling the definition of workman to lead evidence and prove it before the Court.

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-employer has filed this petition challenging the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Navsari, dated 31.12.2019 in Reference (T) No. 1/2018 whereby the Labour Court has partly allowed the Reference filed by the respondent-workman and awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs. 75,000/- in lieu of reinstatement as also Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of the Reference to be paid to respondent-workman.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 It is the case of the respondent-workman that he was working with the petitioner as Manager since last about 13 years and he was carrying on his duties honestly and diligently. He has asserted that he was being paid Rs. 75,000/- towards his monthly salary. He has stated about his services that he was working with other sister concern Company of the petitioner at Mumbai and on a request by petitioner-employer he had shifted to Gujarat at Bilimora, District Navsari in the petitioner-Company. Since, he was considered to be faithful to the Company, he was forced to come to Gujarat on assurance of providing him residence. It is further his case that the employer was to give him hike in the salary as also place of residence was to be provided to him. He was further assured not to retire him till he is hale and hearty and on such an assurance he joined his duty at the aforesaid place in Gujarat with the petitioner. It is further his case that his work was to record presence of workers, making payment to them, getting weighed the goods received in transport, to prepare challans and bills etc. as also he was assigned the work other sister concerned Firm Tidan Fojin. He has asserted in his statement of claims that no work was ever assigned to him either in managerial or supervisory capacity. He was further not allowed to take any independent decision to run the factory. He has asserted that he had no authority to sign the cheque, to recruit/remove anyone. At the same time, he had no authority to issue any charge-sheet to anyone, to promote anyone or grant any increment. He has asserted that he has fulfilled the definition of ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.2 Though he has asserted with regard to non-payment of bonus, benefits of Provident Fund etc. he has asserted that he was also paid one month salary towards bonus alongwith other workmen of the petitioner. There are other complaints with regard to non-grant of leave and working hours also. There is further complaint with regard to non-payment towards overtime performed by him. At last, he has stated that from 01.09.2017 by oral order his services came to be terminated on the ground that at his instance one other workman has filed case against the employer. However, he has further stated that for the month of August, 2017 no salary has been paid to him, which is illegal. Though he has attempted to serve, he is prevented therefrom. Of course, he has admitted that salary of August, 2017 has been deposited in his account on 07.09.2017. As such other complaints therein are not material for present purpose, and therefore, it has not been referred to in detail hereinabove. Pursuant to the complaints for illegal oral termination, conciliation proceedings initiated and on failure thereof, appropriate Government made Reference to the Labour Court.

3. On filing of the statement of claims as also issuance of notice, petitioner appeared and submitted its written reply vide Exh.9. Over and above general denial, as also assertion that Reference is illegal, it has been stated that even in his erstwhile service, the respondent-workman worked in the capacity of supervisor with the present petitioner and he has joined as Manager and from that day also he was working as Manager. Though there is denial, to each assertions made in the statement of claims even ora