The designation of an employee is not decisive; the nature of duties performed determines workman status under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 27.09.2017 in reference LCB No. 307/2009 passed by the learned Labour Court, Vadodara whereby, the learned Labour Court has allowed the reference and held that termination dated 02.04.2009 is illegal and the directions were issued to pay 100% back wages to the workman from the date of termination i.e 02.04.2009 till the date of superannuation. The ground for challenging the impugned award is mainly that the petitioner does not fall under the definition of workmen as per section2(s) of the Act, 1947.

3. The gist of the case is that the organization of the petitioner-Company comprises with various internal department namely HR Department, Accounts Department, Quality Department and Research and Development (R&D) Department etc. and as per the tree of management hierarchy, post of Senior Engineer, Executive Engineer having salary of Rs.25,000/- would be considered as Supervisory in nature and having authority to deal and manage the affairs of the concerned department i.e research and development department. The respondent was initially appointed vide appointment order dated 08.08.1980 as a Technical Assistant in R&D Department and subsequently promoted as Senior Engineer/Executive Engineer and was drawing the salary of Rs.26,000/-. The respondent has tendered the resignation on 02.04.2009 to the higher authorities of the Company which was accepted and petitioner-Company paid all terminal benefits. Thereafter, dispute was raised before the learned Labour Court which was registered being reference LCB No.307 of 2009. The respondent filed the statement of claim and the petitioner Company has filed the written statement raising the preliminary objections about the maintainability of reference in view of the fact that respondent was never engaged as workman and he cannot be termed as ‘workman’ under section 2(s) of the I.D.Act, 1947. The learned Reference Court has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent-workman vide judgment and award dated 27.09.2017 which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Vasavada for the petitioner and learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Ms.Aditi Raol for the respondent.

4.1. Learned advocate Mr.Vasavada submits that learned Labour Court ought not to have assumed the jurisdiction as the respondent being Senior Engineer falling under the cadre of supervisor capacity in the R&D Department and work of the respondent was to operate the manufactured products of the Company and looking to the nature of job and experience required in the job, the respondent cannot be said as workman and therefore, reference ought to have been rejected on that ground. Learned advocate Mr.Vasavada submits that present respondent has been working as a Senior Engineer and there were other 10 to 12 workmen working in the said department and though specific contentions were raised in the written statement with regard to the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court to entertain the reference, without framing issues, the learned Labour Court has allowed the reference in favour of the respondent.

4.2. Learned advocate Mr.Vasavada submits that considering the nature of work performed by the respondent, the respondent cannot be said to be a workman as per the Act, 1947. Learned advocate Mr.Vasavada submits that the other twelve workers who are working under the instructions of the respondent as Senior Engineer in R&D Department however, only to mislead the learned Court, the respondent has intentionally and deliberately mentioned his post as Technical Assistant. Learned advocate Mr.Vasavada submits that after tendering resignation voluntarily and after taking all the terminal benefits, learned Reference Court has committed error in granting the back wages for the per