The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act and its application to individuals employed in supervisory roles with salaries beyond a specified threshold.

1. The petitioner is the management of the Cooperative Bank. In this writ petition, they have come forward to challenge an Award passed by the second respondent Labour Court made in I.D.No.359 of 2000, dated 10.01.2006. By the impugned Award, the labour court directed payment of wages to the first respondent from the date on which he was terminated, i.e., on 16.11.1998 till the date of his superannuation, i.e., on 30.11.2003 with all other other attendant benefits together with suit cost of Rs.250/-.

2. The writ petition was admitted on 17.08.2007. Pending the writ petition, this court had granted an interim stay. Subsequently, the interim stay granted was made absolute with a condition that the management should deposit 50% of the backwages to the credit of the industrial dispute. The first respondent was allowed to withdraw 25% out of 50% of backwages deposited. The matter was subsequently sent for resolution of dispute by the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. As no conciliation was possible, the matter came back to this court.

3. It is the case of the petitioner cooperative bank that the first respondent was appointed as a Peon in the bank on 01.01.1964. On 19.07.1993, he became the Secretary of the society till the date of his termination. During the course of his employment, he had committed several irregularities in the payment of grant of loan to the members of the bank. A charge memo, dated 24.7.1999 was given to him. In the said memo, there were as many as six charges. The first respondent gave his explanation on 09.08.1999 denying the charges. A criminal case was also registered by the CCIW police based upon an enquiry held under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. Since the original records were seized by the police, the records were not made available during the enquiry. But in view of the gravity of the charges and in view of the fact that a criminal case was registered, he was terminated from service on 03.12.1999.

4. The first respondent had raised a dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute finally reached the labour court, Salem and it was taken on file as I.D.No.359 of 2000. Before the Labour Court, the first respondent examined himself as W.W.1. On the side of the management, one P. Jayaraman was examined as M.W.1 and he also filed 20 documents which were marked as Exs.M.1 to M.20. The labour court had rejected the preliminary objection, i.e., that the first respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and hence, the industrial dispute was not maintainable. The labour court held that since he was functioning under the control of the Special Officer and merely because, he was asked to supervise the work of others, by itself will not go out of purview of the Industrial Disputes Act. They have not furnished any proof to show that the workman was entitled to raise a dispute for arbitration for recovery of loan amounts. But, the labour court had failed to appreciate Ex.M.16, dated 3.6.1996 which was the proceedings of the Special Officer regarding allotment of work for various workers. Ex.M.17 was the resolution passed by the petitioner bank. Ex.M.18 was the proceedings relating to allotment of work for staff of the bank. Ex.M.19 was the resolution of the bank and Ex.M.20 was also the resolution of the petitioner bank. These documents were spoken to by M.W.1, who had clearly stated that the first respondent was looking after the administration and was doing supervisory role over the staff. He was getting salary of Rs.11,326/-. He had power to manage the society. He had also power to sign cheques as well as to grant leave as per the resolution of the management and the proceedings of the Special Officer.

5. The Labour Court however went into question that he cannot appoint staff to the society. He cannot evaluate the work of the staff and he cannot decide the duties and responsibilities of the staff. He cannot provi