Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. & Others - Appellants
Versus
Presiding Officer & Others - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 28475 of 2007
Decided On : 01-08-2022
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2 (s), (k) – Present two petitions are cross-petitions against same award of Labour Court – With consent of learned Advocates for parties, both these petitions are taken up for joint hearing and disposal – Facts are recorded from Special Civil Application – Held, Court is convinced that respondent will not fall in definition of a 'workman', issue of raising industrial dispute will have to be decided in favour of petitioner-company as a necessary consequence – Judgment and award of Labour Court therefore requires to be quashed and set aside – Accordingly, judgment and award passed by Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference (LCB) is quashed and set aside – Dismissed.
Key Points: - The respondent (employee) is argued to be non-workman under Section 2(s); judgment holds respondent does not fall within workman definition, affecting industrial dispute viability (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Labour Court's award for reinstatement and back wages is quashed and set aside; reference deemed without jurisdiction for the workman-status dispute (!) . - The Court references statutory definitions and prior evidence (appointment/confirmation letters showing supervisory role and salary) to determine workman status under Section 2(s) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Proceedings noted as cross-petitions with joint hearing; final outcome: rule absolute in favor of employer; back wages/17B considerations addressed with no separate order (!) (!) (!) . - Interim stay was granted earlier under Section 17B; later not to recover 17B allowances due to prolonged litigation (!) (!) . - References to constitutional protections (Arts. 12, 14, 16) and industrial dispute prerequisites under the Industrial Disputes Act (!) (!) . - Labour Court evidence on nature of duties and supervisory role critical in determining workman status; its disregard of relevant evidence found perversity (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The impugned order of reference dated 2.1.2003 and subsequent award are held without jurisdiction for the disputed workman status (!) . - Appointment/confirmation letters establish designation and pay grade contradicting the workman status at relevant salary threshold (above 1600) (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment emphasizes that a statutory remedy under Article 226 is not available for enforcing a personal contract, except under recognized exceptions such as Industrial Law reinstatement cases (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
1. RULE. Learned AGP Ms. Surbhi Bhati waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Advocate Ms. Trusha K. Patel waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2 and learned advocate Mr. Rishin Patel waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.3 in Special Civil Application No.28475 of 2007 and learned Advocate Mr. Mehul C. Mehta waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent in Special Civil Application No.8871 of 2008.
2. The present two petitions are cross-petitions against the same award of the Labour Court. With consent of learned Advocates for the parties, both these petitions are taken up for joint hearing and disposal. The facts are recorded from Special Civil Application No.28475 of 2007.
2.1 Special Civil Application No.28475 of 2007 is filed by the employer with prayers as under:-
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 30.3.2007 as well as the impugned order dated 5.4.2006 and the order of reference dated 2.1.2003."
2.2 Special Civil Application No.8871 of 2008 is filed b the workman with following prayers:-
3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order of reference is without jurisdiction and authority in law and therefore, it is void and non-est. The authority under the Act i.e. the respondent No.2 can make order of reference only in respect of the dispute which can be classified as industrial dispute and which would fall within the purview of the said term defined under Section 2(k) of the Act. The respondent No.3 being in the non-workman category and/or being engaged and working in the supervisory category drawing salary of more than Rs.1600/- would not be covered within the meaning of the term workman defined under Section 2(s) of the Act and a grievance or a dispute by or of a person who is not workman within the meaning of the term under Section 2(s) of the Act cannot be treated as industrial dispute.
3.1 It is submitted that he respondent No.1 Court erred in not appreciating that the respondent No.3 was not a "workman" within the meaning of the said term under Section 2(s) of the Act.
The respondent No.3 was engaged and working as a Shift Engineer i.e. he was engaged in working in supervisory cadre and capacity and at the initial stage
The classification of an employee as a 'workman' depends on the actual nature of their duties rather than job titles, reaffirming the need for careful evidence evaluation under the Industrial Dispute....
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 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.
Section 33(C)(1) of I.D.Act deals with situation where money is due to a workman under a settlement or an award.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the contents of documents by primary evidence or secondary evidence under Sections 61 and 65 of the Evidence Act.
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.
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
