JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the award passed in I.D.No.925 of 2001 dated 15.02.2013, on the file of the first respondent herein and to quash the same.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The second respondent herein, was appointed as an Accounts Officer in the petitioner’s College on 28.09.1996. When he had challenged the order of dismissal before the Labour Court under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as “ID Act”], the main objections raised by the petitioner- Management was that he was not a “workman” as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The Labour Court overruled the objections, by holding that the Management had failed to establish their case and accordingly, ordered for reinstatement, together with continuity of service and full back wages.

3. In the present Writ Petition, the only ground raised by the Management is that, the nature of duties of an Accounts Officer will not fall within the definition of “workman”, as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and therefore sought for interference of the impugned award dated 15.02.2013. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the nature of work performed by the second respondent, would squarely fall within the definition of a workman, which was established by them in the Labour Court through oral and documentary evidences and therefore, no interference is required in the impugned award dated 15.02.2013.

4. The ‘Test’ to determine whether an employee is a “workman” or not, as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, has been consistently dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions, whereby it has been held that the designation of the post held by the employee is insignificant and what would be relevant is the nature of duties performed. In the case of Anand Regional Co-operative Oil Seedsgrowers’ Union Ltd., Vs. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah reported in 2006 (6) SCC 548, such a proposition was held in the following manner:-

“15. Supervision contemplates direction and control. While determining the nature of the work performed by an employee, the essence of the matter should call for consideration. An undue importance need not be given for the designation of an employee, or the name assigned to, the class to which he belongs. What is needed to be asked is as to what are the primary duties he performs. For the said purpose, it is necessary to prove that there were some persons working under him whose work is required to be supervised. Being in charge of the section alone and that too it being a small one and relating to quality control would not answer the test.”

5. In this background, the next question that arise for consideration is as to whether the Management had established the nature of work performed by the second respondent before the Labour Court or not? Unfortunately, the Management herein had not let in any oral or documentary evidence at all. On the contrary, the second respondent herein had examined himself as W.W.1 and marked seven documents to substantiate his case. Before the Labour Court, there was a duty cast on the Management to prove that the nature of duties performed by the second respondent would not fall under the definition of a workman and a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Management of Hindustan Motors Ltd., Vs. Lakshmiah and another reported in 2002 (2) L.L.N. 725, had held that such burden of proof lies with the Management. As stated earlier, the Management has not chosen to let in a single evidence, either oral or documentary, to substantiate their claim that the nature of duties would not qualify the second respondent to be a “workman”. When the burden of proving such a fact lies with the Management and they having failed to do so, this Court exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Const