JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the 1st Respondent pertaining to his order in I.D.No.101 of 2001, dated 24.03.2004 and quash the same for a consequential direction, directing the 2nd Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner in service with continuity of service, full backwages and all other attendant benefits.)

1. Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition, seeking to quash the order dated 24.03.2004 passed by the 1st Respondent in I.D.No.101 of 2001 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd Respondent to reinstate him in service with continuity of service, full backwages and all other attendant benefits.

2. According to the Petitioner, he joined the services of the 2nd Respondent/Management as an Assistant Driller on 29.04.1989 and after probation period of six months, his service was confirmed. Thereafter, he was promoted as Driller with the pay scale of Rs.4,500/-. It is the case of the Petitioner that, he has been discharging his duties for more than 12 hours a day, as per the instructions of his Superior Officer. Subsequently, the Petitioner was terminated from service and challenging the same, he raised an Industrial Dispute. The Labour Court rendered a finding against the Petitioner holding that, he was not a ‘workman’ in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. Before the Labour Court, the 2nd Respondent/Management contended that, the Petitioner was a Management staff in terms of the contract of employment and he does not fall within the ambit of the definition ‘workman’ and therefore, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not apply to his case. It was further contended by the Management that, the nature of work, duties and responsibilities of the Petitioner have been mentioned in his Appointment Order itself. It was clearly stated by the Management that, though the Petitioner was designated as a ‘Driller’, his nature of work was purely supervisory in nature.

4. Before the Labour Court, both the Management and the workman have tendered evidence in support of their respective stand. The Labour Court, after analyzing the evidence on record, rendered a categorical finding that, though the Petitioner is called a Driller and that, the said nomenclature gives an impression that, he is a ‘workman’, the duty carried on by him is only supervisory in nature. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the Award passed by the Labour Court is extracted hereunder:

"11. On consideration of the entire evidence in this case and also on perusal of documents in this case, I am of the opinion that though the Petitioner is called as a Driller which nomenclature gives impression as a workman, when the duties mentioned for him is only in a supervisory capacity and it is clearly mentioned that he has to supervise the work of employees working under him and guide them independently in efficient discharge of duties and he has also given power to take disciplinary action against the erring employees. Under such circumstances, I find he was appointed only in supervisory cadre and not as a workman. Further, his salary is also above the amount mentioned in the exemption. Under such circumstances, I find the Petitioner is not a workman entitled to the benefits under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

6. In the case on hand, the Petitioner has admitted that, he is responsible for allotment/distribution/supervision of work. The nature of work of the Petitioner is clearly stated in clause 12 of the Terms and Conditions of Appointment in Annexure ‘A’, dated 05.05.1989. Relevant clause is extracted hereunder:

“12. Your duties will include responsibility for efficient, satisfactory and economical operation in the area of responsibility that may be assigned to you time to time. As a