The court emphasized that an employee must establish their status as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, and failure to provide cogent evidence can justify dismissal without a departmental inquiry.

JUDGMENT :

M.K. THAKKER, J.

1 The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharuch in Reference (LCB) No.75 of 2015 dated 15.04.2019, whereby the Reference filed by the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the I.D. Act’ referred hereinafter).

2 It is the case of the petitioner before the learned Reference Court that he was working as a Store Officer in the Warehouse Department since 23.03.2008, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-, and that he was discharging duties falling within the ambit of a "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, without any authority or powers vested in the managerial cadre. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent– management levelled false and fabricated allegations against him with regard to the theft of silver nitrate, allegedly recovered from his car, and on that basis, he was terminated from service on 30.01.2013 without holding any departmental inquiry. The petitioner therefore raised an industrial dispute seeking a declaration that his termination was illegal, together with the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. The said dispute was referred for adjudication before the learned Labour Court, Bharuch, by framing the terms of reference as to whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement on his original post with continuity of service and back wages. The respondent–management appeared before the learned Labour Court and raised a preliminary contention challenging the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act, contending further that he was working in a managerial cadre and was involved in the act of theft of silver nitrate, which constituted misconduct, and therefore his services were rightly terminated forthwith. In support of his case, the petitioner examined himself at Exhibit 50 and produced the statement of claim at Exhibit 8, but did not lead any further evidence. On the other hand, the respondent– management examined three witnesses, namely, Mr. Vipin Kumar (Exh. 26) and Mr. Rajeshbhai Shah (Exh. 31), employees of the respondent–company, and Mr. Vinay Shah (Exh. 33), an employee of Dinesh Mill, where the petitioner allegedly obtained employment after his termination. The respondent–management also placed documentary evidence on record, including the log sheet, job profile of the petitioner, and a certificate regarding his appointment and salary in Dinesh Mill. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, the learned Labour Court rejected the Reference, which is now the subject matter of challenge in the present petition before this Court.

3 Heard the learned advocate Mr.P.C.Chaudhary for the petitioner and the learned advocate Mr. Vaidankar for the respondent No.1.

4 Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary submits that the learned Reference Court has committed an error in dismissing the Reference on the preliminary ground that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of “workman.” He submits that from the evidence adduced by the respondent–company itself, it was established that the petitioner was not serving in any managerial or supervisory cadre but was working as a Store Officer, which falls within the purview of “workman” as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhary further submits that two witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent in support of their defence failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the petitioner was not a workman. The log sheet, which was produced to suggest that the petitioner had signed in the capacity of a supervisor, was also not proved, as the petitioner denied the said signature during his cross-examination.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Chaud