Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, JJ.
Food Corporation of India – Petitioner
Versus
Kumar Madan Mohan S/o Dwarika Singh – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 446 of 2019
Decided On : 04-08-2023
Industrial Disputes Act - Complaint under Section 33-A - Summary of Acts and Sections: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Section 33, 33-A) - The court examined the maintainability of the complaint under Section 33-A alleging non-compliance of Section 33 of the Act. The court also considered whether the respondent was a 'workman' under the Act. The court analyzed the legal provisions and interpretations of Section 33 and 33-A, and their application to the case. The court referred to the judgment in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. vs. Ram Gopal Sharma, (2002) 2 SCC 244, and discussed the purpose and nature of the amendment in Section 33 in 1956. The court also referred to the proviso to amended Section 33(2)(b) and its interpretation in previous judgments. The court highlighted the legal principles established in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs. Satya Prakash, (2013) 9 SCC 232 and Management of Karur Vysya Bank Limited vs. S. Balakrishnan, (2016) 12 SCC 221, emphasizing the duties of the industrial adjudicator under Section 33-A. The court concluded that the order of dismissal cannot be set aside on mere non-compliance of the provision of Section 33, and the industrial Tribunal/labour Court has to decide the case as if it was a reference under Section 10 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the final Award and the order dated 20.09.2016, which decided the preliminary issues regarding the status of the respondent as 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent was dismissed from service, and a complaint under Section 33-A of the Act was filed before the Industrial Tribunal, alleging non-compliance of Section 33. The foundational undisputed facts included the respondent's appointment and promotions, as well as the charges against the respondent in the domestic enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint under Section 33-A alleging non-compliance of Section 33 of the Act was maintainable. The court also found that the respondent was a 'workman' under the Act, based on the nature of duties and the evidence presented. However, the court concluded that the findings of the learned Tribunal and the writ Court regarding the respondent's status as a 'workman' were not sustainable in the eyes of the law, and the orders were set aside.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the complaint under Section 33-A, the status of the respondent as a 'workman' under the Act, and the fairness of the domestic enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 33 and 33-A, the nature of the respondent's duties, and the legal principles established in previous judgments. The court emphasized the duties of the industrial adjudicator under Section 33-A and the purpose and nature of the amendment in Section 33 in 1956.
Final Decision: The court allowed the L.P.A. and set aside the orders dated 20.09.2016 and the final award, concluding that the respondent was not a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act at the relevant point of time.
ORDER :
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 27.03.2019 passed in W.P. (L) No. 4549 of 2018 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.
2. In the writ petition, the appellant had challenged the final Award dated 22.12.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad to the extent it related to the sole respondent who had filed Complaint Case No. 1 of 2012 under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The appellant had also challenged the order dated 20.09.2016, whereby the domestic enquiry was held to be unfair and the preliminary issue regarding the status of the respondent as ‘workman’ under the aforesaid Act was also decided against the appellant. The issue regarding the status of the respondent under the aforesaid Act was again decided against the appellant in the final Award though the grounds for the decision are different in the two orders.
3. The foundational undisputed facts are as follows:
(a) The respondent was appointed as Assistant Grade-III Depot on 16.01.1978; promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II Depot with effect from 13.07.1996 and then promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I Depot in District Office, Food Corporation of India, Patna on 02.07.1998.
(b) On 08.06.2009, an order was issued by the Area Manager directing the respondent to go to Dumraon to supervise the liquidation of Paddy issued by Depot In-charge PPC Dumraon along with Shri Mishri Hembram, Manager Depot FSD Dighaghar and Shri D.P. Singh, Manager of D.O. FCI, Patna and they were supposed to submit a report.
(c) On 12.07.2011, the respondent was served with article of charges as under:
“Article-I
The aforesaid committee member did not submit any progress/interim/final report or intimate the factual position even after lapses of more than two months compelling the Area Manager, FCI, DO, Patna to issue another order vide no. PAT/V&S/1/2009 Dated 19.08.2009 directing the aforesaid committee members to conduct the same job as assigned by the order dated 08.06.2009.
Thus, the committee members in clear disobedience to the orders of higher authority were found negligent in their duties and failed to assess the gravity of the matter and to act in the desired manner which is detrimental to the interest of the corporation.
Article-II
The above committee member submitted two reports dated 28.08.2009 and dated 28.10.2009 in a very casual manner without supervising the delivery of paddy and its transportation as per direction rather they acted hand in glove with the I/C PPC Dumaraon in suppressing the factual position and the very purpose of their deployment was defeated.
Article-III
As per record, for the above assigned job of supervision of delivery/shifting of paddy, Sri Devendra Prasad Singh, Manager (Stg) and Kumar Madan Mohan Assistant Gr. I (D) stayed at PPC Dumraon for 39 days and 41 days respectively which is abnormal and beyond any justification. Except in the committee reports there was no signature of the committee members in any other document enclosed with the reports to justify their presence in the centre from 13.06.2009 to 28.08.2009. Whereas Sri Devendra Prasad Singh, Manager (Stg) and Kumar Madan Mohan Assistant Gr. I (D) have claimed TA bills for their stay in the centre for 39 days and 41 days respectively.
Sri Mishri Hembram Manager (Depot) another committee member has not claimed any TA Bill for his stay which raises doubt over his presence in the PPC, Dumraon.
They have submitted false report in connivance with the I/C PPC Dumraon who could misappropriate huge food-grain stocks at a later stage.”
(d) The charges were proved in the domestic enquiry and the respondent was dismissed from service.
(e) The respondent filed a complaint under section 33-A of the aforesaid Act before the Industrial Tribunal, interalia, alleging as under
AI
The court ruled that the appellant was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, affirming the Tribunal's lack of jurisdiction over the complaint.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a holistic consideration of the entire material on record to determine the predominant functions of the employee, emphasizing the esse....
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.
Assistant Managers of Food Corporation, due to managerial roles and exceeding salary, are not considered 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act, impacting their entitlement to selection grades.
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
