The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the work performed by the employee, the orders given by the superior officer, and the definition of 'workman' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were crucial in determining the proportionality of the punishment for termination of services.

RAKESH TIWARI, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the impugned award dated 30th November, 2000, contained in Annexure XII to the writ petition, passed by the designated Presiding Officer, Labour Court U.P. for district Saharanpur.

2. The Labour court, by the impugned award, decided the reference in favour of the workman and has held that the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 31.3.1998 is illegal and unjustified. It has further been held that the punishment of termination from service was too harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct. While granting relief of reinstatement with full back wages to the workman, the Labour Court also directed that instead of termination of service, stoppage of one increment and withholding the wages for period of suspension would be the appropriate punishment on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

3. The dispute relates to the termination of services w.e.f. 31.3.1998 of respondent No. 4-S.P. Singh Verma.

4. Aggrieved by his termination, the workman raised an industrial dispute. The events which led to the termination of services of the workman were that on the fateful day, i.e., on 8th January, 1998, some labourers gathered at time office due to death of one Yunes who died a natural death in the factory, he was brought from the workshop. His body was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. At about 13.45 hours, a sudden development occurred A procession of workmen also reached the gate. The two gates of the factory were closed before their arrival as a precautionary measure. The leaders were allowed to enter the gate and they went inside to discuss the situation with the management. The talks were going on and leaders were coming in and out of the gate. The mob also blocked the road. At about 16.30 hours, the workmen lost patience and tried to climb over the gate. In the meantime, the respondent No. 4 on the instructions of Joint Manager (Administration) opened the small vicker gate to let out persons carrying mail and as a result a situation developed when some workmen forcibly entered through the Vicker gate when it was opened to let out the aforesaid two persons carrying mail.

5. On conciliation proceedings having failed, the matter was referred by the State Government to respondent No. 1- designated Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P for district Saharanpur. The reference was registered as Adjudication Case No. 93 of 1999 before the Labour Court.

6. The case of the employers was that the respondent No. 4- workman concerned was employed as Security Inspector. As per appointment letter, which is contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition, his services were governed by the Service Rules of the company applicable to the senior members of staff.

7. At the time of admission, an interim mandamus was issued by this court keeping in abeyance the operation of the impugned award dated 30.11.2000 till further orders of the court.

8. Sri V.B. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vijay Sinha, Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned award on two grounds, firstly, that since the punishment of termination of the services of the workman was proportionate to the gravity of misconduct committed by him, the Labour Court has erred in holding that the misconduct was not grave and, secondly, that the respondent No. 4- workman was working in a supervisory capacity and was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention that the respondent No. 4 was not a workman, invited the attention of the court to the following portion of clause 6 of the appointment letter of the workman, dated 7.7.94:-

"6. Your services shall be governed by the Service Rules of the Company applicable to Senior Members of Staff a copy whereof is appended hereto which becomes part and parcel of you terms of employment with the company."

9. The duties of respon