The definition of 'workman' under Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is restrictive in nature and does not cover persons whose duties are operational and advisory in nature, such as the respondent lady social worker in this case.

( 1 ) WHETHER the duties performed by the respondent No. 2 Smt. Chanda Begam, the alleged workman performing the job of a lady social worker whose work was primarily to persuade the ladies for the purpose of family planning, is covered within the definition of the word workman under Section 2 (z) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act), is the short question that falls for determination in the present petition filed by the petitioner, the employer, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated May 20, 1992 (Annexure-I to the petition ).

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are almost admitted. Respondent No. 2 was employed as lady social worker in the Kanpur Branch of the Family Planning Association of India. The main job of the lady social worker was to impart information and knowledge of family planning methods, to motivate eligible couples for acceptance and practice of family planning, to promote and distribute conventional contraceptives and refer cases of terminal methods to Government hospitals, to hold meetings of eligible couples to impart family planning educational and motivational inputs, and to undertake door to door approach for motivating eligible couples for] family planning acceptance and persuade them to adopt family planning. Respondent No. 2 was initially engaged as lady social worker since April 20, 1983. Her performance having been found unsatisfactory, her services were terminated with effect from March 1, 1985. But later on she accepted her mistake and promised to improve with the assurance not to claim continuity of service. Hence she was appointed afresh with effect from March 15, 1985 (vide An-; nexure-2 to the petition ). As she did not improve her work, consequently her services were terminated with effect from October 5, 1985 by notice dated September 4, 1985. She raised a dispute before the conciliation Officer which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court III, Kanpur. The dispute was registered as Adjudication Case No. 149 of 1987, and the question was whether the services of Smt. Chandra Begam, respondent No. 2, the lady social worker,: were illegally terminated, and if it was so, what relief she was entitled? Evidence was led by both the parties, and one of the main questions was whether respondent No. 2 was the workman within the definition of Section 2 (z) of the Act. By the impugned award dated May 20, 1992 (Annexure-I), it was held that her services were illegally terminated and she was entitled to be reinstated with back wages from the date of termination of her service. It is against this award that the present writ petition has been filed.

( 3 ) SHRI J. N. Tewari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners urged that the duties of respondent No. 2, the alleged lady social worker, was to do canvassing and promote the cause of family planning, including suggestions, ways and means to augment tubectomy and to convince the eligible couples and to make publicity. These duties were not covered within the Definition of workman under Section 2 (z) of the Act, as it did not involve skill or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work. Consequently, the reference under Section 4 (k) of the act was without jurisdiction: Reliance was placed on T. P. Srivastava v. National Tobacco company of India Ltd. (1992-I-LLJ-86), Miss. A. Sunderambal v. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu (1989-1- LLJ-61 ).

( 4 ) SHRI Gaurav Kumar Srivastavu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, urged that the duties performed by respondent No. 2 indicate that she was covered with the definition of workman, and that the Labour Court has correctly held under the Award that respondent No. 2 was covered with the definition of workman, and the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners were distinguishable.

( 5