The classification of an employee as a 'workman' depends on the actual nature of their duties rather than job titles, reaffirming the need for careful evidence evaluation under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM SINHA, J.

1. The writ petition is up hearing on restoration. A co-ordinate Bench by order dated 13^th April, 2023 in RVWPET no.411 of 2019 filed by petitioner, set aside earlier order dated 20^th September, 2019 passed by another co-ordinate Bench, dismissing it.

2. Opposite party no.3 in the writ petition had his service terminated. There was conciliation and on failure, reference order dated 18^th January, 2017 made. Schedule of the reference is reproduced below.

“Whether the termination of services of Sri Chinmaya Prasad Mishra, Ex-Supervisor w.e.f. 19.06.2015 by the management of M/s. Nava Bharat Ventures Ltd., At/PO: Kharagprasad, Dist-Dhenkanal is legal or justified ? If not, to what relief Sri Mishra is entitled?

3. Mr. Misra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner (management). Mr. Nayak, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of opposite party nos.1 and 2. Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.3.

4. On 3^rd July, 2024 petitioner was again heard. Mr. Misra had submitted, under challenge is award dated 26^th July, 2018 made by the Labour Court. It is illegal as containing perversity of not being based on the evidence. Opposite party no.3 was engaged as supervisor. Under his client said opposite party was not a workman. Drawing attention to impugned award and in context of the reference vide said order dated 18^th January, 2017 Mr. Misra had pointed out, first issue framed by the Labour Court was regarding the contention. Said Court held against his client by considering mainly evidence of Management Witness (MW) no.3. He submitted, said witness was working in same capacity as opposite party no.3. His evidence clearly shows the work was of supervisory nature. Thus the finding was contrary to the evidence relied upon. On query from Court he submitted, the review was allowed recalling order dated 20^th September, 2019 dismissing the writ petition. By order dated 13^th April, 2023, the co-ordinate Bench in allowing the review had found that award dated 30^th March, 2019 of the Industrial Tribunal had not been looked into and so the recall. He referred to said award and submitted, it was made in respect of industrial dispute regarding one of five engineers, whose services were terminated by his client. Opposite party no.3 was another one of the five. He relied on paragraph-7 in said award to submit, facts in that case are similar to the case of opposite party no.3, if not same. There was, by said award, correct appreciation of the facts for clear finding that the terminated employee was in supervisory staff cadre drawing gross salary in excess of ₹10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) and therefore, came within the exclusion clause and thus not a workman within meaning of section 2(s) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He also relied upon evidence on affidavit of MW no. 3, particularly paragraph 3 and paragraphs 14 to 18 of his deposition in cross-examination. On further query he submitted, nature of work done by opposite party no.3 was not stated by him in his claim petition filed in the reference. As such, impugned award is also based on no evidence. He relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Krishna Kant Pandey reported in (2015) 4 SCC 270 , paragraph-11 for interpretation on definition of workman. Mr. Misra then drew attention to page 78 being copy of ‘safe work permit’ dated 28^th January, 2015. He submitted, the contractor reported that the job on the machine was completed in full. The document was sign