Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 84
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
K. Pazhani
Versus
The Presiding Officer, The Labour Court, Cuddalore & Another
Writ Petition No.21014 of 2007
Decided On :Decided on : 05-01-2012
For the Petitioner - R. Kannan, Advocate.
For the Respondents - R1 G. Sankaran, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of whether a Secretary of a cooperative society qualifies as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981.
Headnote:
Workman - Industrial Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act, Section 2(s); Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, Section 2(a)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Secretary of a cooperative society, was dismissed from service and raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court held that the petitioner was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore, the dispute was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, being a Secretary of the cooperative society, was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of 'employee' being similar to that of a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and referred to previous judgments where similar claims were negatived.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was allowed to avail the statutory revisional remedy under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983.
1. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the award passed by the first respondent – Labour Court, Cuddalore in I.D.No.112 of 1998 dated 26.3.2007.
2. By the impugned award, the Labour Court held that the petitioner being a Secretary of the second respondent co-operative society, which is a primary agricultural cooperative bank at Parvathipuram, Vadalur Post is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the dispute raised by him under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable.
3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was given a suspension order of 25.7.1997. Subsequently after his explanation, a charge memo dated 25.11.1997 was given to him. The President of the Board of Directors took appropriate action including conducting domestic enquiry. The Domestic Enquiry Officer gave a report dated 15.2.1998 holding that the petitioner guilty of the misconduct. On the basis of the report, a second show cause notice dated 25.2.1998 was given. The petitioner gave explanation on 04.03.1998. Based on the explanation and based upon the records, he was dismissed from service by order dated 10.6.1998. The petitioner, thereafter raised an industrial dispute before the Government Labour Officer, Cuddalore under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. When notice was sent to the Management, they filed an objection statement stating that the petitioner, as against the dismissal filed a representation to the Board and the Board refused to accept the petitioners demand. Since the stand of the parties at variance, the Conciliation Officer gave a failure report dated 02.11.1998.
4. On the strength of the failure report, the petitioner filed a claim statement before the Labour Court. The Labour Court registered the dispute as I.D.No.112 of 1998 and issued notice to the second respondent. The second respondent filed a counter statement. Apart from justifying the dismissal, they also raised a preliminary issue that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the dispute was not maintainable.
5. The Labour Court, initially framed preliminary issue with reference to the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the management. By a preliminary award dated 20.8.2001, the Labour Court held that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was not fair and proper. Therefore for further proceedings, the matter was directed to be posted on 26.9.2001. Subsequent to the preliminary award, on the side of the management, eight witnesses were examined as M.W.1 to M.W.8 and on their side 91 documents were filed and marked as M.1 to M.91. On the side of the petitioner, apart from examining himself as W.W.1, he also examined one V.G.Jayamani as W.W.2. On the side of the petitioner, 17 documents were filed and marked as Exs.W.1 to W.17. The Labour Court framed an issue, namely, whether the petitioner was entitled to any relief. But however, without going into the merits of the dispute, the Labour Court first decided the preliminary issue as to whether the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court held that the petitioner was mainly engaged in a supervisory capacity and in his cross examination, he had stated that under him, there were four clerks and he was supervising their work. The Labour Court also referred to a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Naganathand others V. Common Cadre Committee, Bidar and others reported in 2000 L.L.R 238 and found that the Secretary of a Cooperative Society is not workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is in that view of the matter, the Labour Court found that the dispute raised by the petitioner was not a valid dispute as he is not a workman, who is competent to raise a dispute. It is in that view
