The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 2(s)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the definition of a 'workman' and the requirement for following the prescribed procedure for retrenchment.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is employer’s petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 27.08.2015 rendered in favour of second respondent by learned Labour Court, Haridwar in Adjudication Case No. 03 of 2014.

2. By the said award, learned Labour Court has held that termination of services of second respondent is illegal and violative of provisions contained in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it is provided that second respondent shall be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages.

3. It is not in dispute that second respondent was appointed as trainee in Laksar (Haridwar) Unit of M/s Birla Tyres Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 22.08.2008. Upon completion of training, he was given regular appointment. The appointment order is silent regarding his designation and there is no mention of designation of second respondent in the writ petition.

4. Services of second respondent were terminated w.e.f. 15.03.2013 against which he raised industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to Labour Court, Haridwar vide order dated 10.01.2014. In the order of reference, his designation is mentioned as ‘Assistant’. English translation of dispute, which was referred for adjudication to Labour Court, is as follows:-

“Whether termination of service of the workman Sri Brijpal S/o Sri Khadak Singh as ‘Assistant’ by the employer w.e.f. 15.03.2013 is proper or legal? If not, what benefit/reliefs, he is entitled to.”

5. Before learned Labour Court, written statements were filed by second respondent & the petitioner and evidence was also led by both the parties. Learned Labour Court answered the reference in favour of second respondent vide award dated 27.08.2015, which is under challenge in this petition.

6. The sole contention raised on behalf of petitioner is that respondent no. 2 was serving in Supervisory capacity as ‘In-charge Canteen’ and his salary was more than the ceiling fixed in Section 2(s)(iv) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, he does not qualify to be a ‘workman’, as defined under Section 2(s)(iv) of the Act, yet learned Labour Court answered the reference in favour of respondent no. 2 by overlooking the stand taken by petitioner in his written statement.

7. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court to pleadings made in para no. 4 of the written statement, filed by the petitioner before learned Labour Court, which is extracted below:-

“4. That at the time of termination of services vide letter dated 14-03-2013, the applicant working in administrative capacity and serving as Incharge of canteen in Opposite Party’s Factory. His responsibilities were to manage the affairs of canteen and the staff. The staff appointed in the canteen was reporting to the applicant for day to day affairs and he was solely responsible for efficient running of canteen. All the material including utensils were under his control and he was responsible for making indents for the same and also to sanction leave of the staff working under him. The staff working under him was reporting to him on daily basis and he was day to day control of the running of canteen and its staff. Further he was drawing monthly wages approximately 10,000/- which were more than Rs.500/-.

8. Perusal of the award reveals that Labour Court had formulated two issues, based on pleadings made by the parties. English translation whereof is as follows:-

(i) Whether second respondent does not fall in the category of workman on account of his being employed in Managerial/ Supervisory capacity.

(ii) Whether service of second respondent was terminated illegally.

9. Learned Labour Court has considered the entire material on record, including the appointment letter, for arriving at the conclusion that second respondent was not serving in Supervisory capacity. Second respondent entered the witness-box and deposed that he was appointed as ‘Assistant’ and he was assigned the duties which are ministerial in nature including checking food