The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and its application to determine the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer for:-

(a) issuance of a writ of, or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction for setting aside the award dated 09.06.2014 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, at Dhanbad, in Complaint Case No.11 of 2013, whereby it has been held that the respondent-workmen be treated as workmen in continuous service from the date of their dismissal and the action of the petitioner-management has been held to be illegal and not justified without examining the merits of the case and without considering that the respondents were proceeded against for major misconduct and were found guilty in a duly-constituted enquiry proceeding and

(b) For issuance of any other or further order or orders as may be considered to be necessary for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to enter into the merits of the said award dated 09.06.2014 and confines its argument only to the ground that admittedly the respondent no.2 being Ex-Assistant Grade-I (Depot) of the petitioner; as is evident from the cause-title of the impugned award which is annexed as Annexure-5 to this writ petition. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.446 of 2019 dated 04.08.2023 paragraphs-36 and 37 of which reads as under:-

“36. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case and the work assigned to Assistant Grade-I (D), in which the respondent was working at the relevant point of time, through the circular dated 30.10.1996, this Court has no doubt that the appellant was working in the supervisory capacity and was assigned the work of supervision and control over the Assistant Grade-II (D) and Assistant Grade-III (D) while performing their duties. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that the respondent cannot said to be a workman under Section 2(s) of the aforesaid Act.

37. In view of the finding of this Court that the respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the aforesaid Act at the relevant point of time, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 20.09.2016 deciding the preliminary issue as well as the impugned final award cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and accordingly, they are set-aside.”

It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court that as the Assistant Grade-I (D) of the petitioner; works in supervisory capacity and was assigned the work of supervision and control over the Assistant Grade-II (D) and Assistant Grade-III (D) while performing their duties, hence, the Assistant Grade-I (D) of the petitioner; cannot be said to be a workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as the respondent no.1 who is the Ex-Manager (Depot) is concerned, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad held him to be a workman relying upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.2084 of 1988 dated 05.08.2011. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment dated 12.12.2022 passed by the single Bench of Delhi High Court in the said W.P.(C) No.2084 of 1988; which was passed after remand of the said writ petition by the Division Bench as Division Bench of Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 697 of 2012 whereby and whereunder they Division Bench set aside the said initial judgment dated 05.08.2011 passed by the Single Judge in said W.P. (C) No.2084 of 1988 decided by Justice S. Muralidhar as is lordship then was and submits that in paragraph no.54 of the said judgment dated 12.12.2022 of Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No.2084 of 1988 which rea