Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. RAMANUJAM
Engineering Construction Corporation, Limited, Madras - Appellant
Versus
Additional Labour Court, Madras and Others - Respondent
Case No : W.P. No. 202 of 1977
Decided On : 30 October 1979
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 2(S), 2(OO), 25F - WORKMAN - RETRENCHMENT - SUPERVISORY WORK - TERMINATION OF SERVICES - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES. 1. The definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is to be interpreted liberally, and the main and substantial work done by an employee determines their status as a workman, not incidental or occasional duties. 2. The termination of services of an employee, even if automatic on the expiry of a contractual period, may still constitute "retrenchment" under Section 2(oo) of the Act, and the requirements of Section 25F must be satisfied. 3. The Labour Court has jurisdiction to determine whether an employee is a "workman" under Section 2(s) and whether their termination of service amounts to "retrenchment" under Section 2(oo), and its findings on these issues are generally not subject to interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, unless there is a clear error of law apparent on the record.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a management company, appointed the second respondent as a foreman (carpentry) on a consolidated salary of Rs. 800 per month. The appointment was temporary and subject to termination on 14 days' notice or upon completion of the construction of reactor and turbine buildings at Kalpakkam. After the completion of Unit No. 1, the management terminated the second respondent's services on the ground that they were no longer required. The second respondent raised a dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the second respondent was a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that his termination of service amounted to "retrenchment" under Section 2(oo), as the requirements of Section 25F had not been satisfied. The management challenged this decision in the High Court by way of a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the Labour Court's decision. It held that the second respondent was a "workman" under Section 2(s) because his main and substantial work was carpentry, even though he also supervised the work of other carpenters. The Court also held that the termination of the second respondent's services amounted to "retrenchment" under Section 2(oo) because it was due to surplusage, as evidenced by the fact that the work in Unit No. 1 was not actually complete at the time of termination and the second respondent was still working in Unit No. 2.
Issues: 1. Whether the second respondent was a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Whether the termination of the second respondent's services amounted to "retrenchment" under Section 2(oo) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. In determining whether an employee is a "workman" under Section 2(s), the Court must consider the main and substantial work done by the employee, not incidental or occasional duties. 2. The termination of services of an employee, even if automatic on the expiry of a contractual period, may still constitute "retrenchment" under Section 2(oo), and the requirements of Section 25F must be satisfied.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Labour Court's decision that the second respondent was a "workman" under Section 2(s) and that his termination of service amounted to "retrenchment" under Section 2(oo).
Ramanujam, J.
The second respondent herein was working under the petitioner-management as a foreman (carpentry) on a consolidated salary of Rs. 800 per month with effect from 12-2-1972 in the construction of reactor and turbine buildings at Kalpakkam in the Madras Automic Project, Unit I. The management, however, terminated the services of the second respondent by an order dated 8-4-1974 on the ground that his services are no longer required. On a dispute having been raised by the second respondent on his non-employment, that dispute was referred to the Labour Court, the first respondent herein by the Government. The Labour Court, after a due enquiry, held that the non-employment of the second respondent was not justified and that, therefore, he must be reinstated in service with back wages and other attendant benefits, if any. The management prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said award passed by the Labour Court in this writ petition mainly on two grounds : (1) As the second respondent's work was supervisory in nature and his salary exceeded Rs. 500 he is not a workman as defined in 5. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act entitled to seek any benefit under the said Act and that as such the reference itself is bad for that reason. (2) In any event the second respondent having been employed for a particular work, his termination on completion of the said work cannot be said to be a retrenchment as defined in S.2(ss) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the Labour Court was in error in holding that as there was violation of S. 25F the order of termination was not valid.
2. The order dated 18-4-1972 appointing the second respondent with effect from 12-2-72 as foreman (carpentry) contained the following terms and conditions :(1) The appointment will be temporary only for the object of constructing reactor and turbine buildings at Kalpakkam for the Madras Atomic Power Project, Unit I undertaken by the management on contract basis and that the same shall be liable to be terminated in any event on the completion of the said work. In the mean-time, either party shall be entitled to terminate the said employment by giving 14 days notice in writing to the other.
(2) During the term of the employment, the second respondent will be paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 800 per month inclusive of all emoluments.
(3) The second respondent will be governed by be subject to the service rules applicable to temporary staff framed by the management from time to and for the time being in force.
This order of appointment has been signed by the General Manager of the petitioner-management and the same has also been signed by the second respondent in token of his having accepted the terms and conditions.
3. According to the management, since the second respondent has been appointed as foreman (carpentry), his work is supervisory in nature and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim the benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act. In support of the said plea the management has examined M.W. 1 another foreman and he has deposed that the work of the second respondent was to supervise the work of the carpenters, that the second respondent need not work as a carpenter along with the carpenters whom he has to supervise, and that the second respondent dent while he was working as a foreman (carpentry) was doing only supervisory work.
4. As against this, the second respondent pleaded that his work was not supervisory in nature and that though some carpenters were asked to work under him, he has also to do carpentry work along with them, and, therefore, he cannot be taken to fall outside the scope of S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He examined himself as M.W. 1 and he had deposed that though 10 or 12 carpenters are made to work according to his directions, he also does carpentry work and that he was not supervising the work of carpenters and that there were other persons to supervise his work as well as the work of 10 o
AI
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
