1972 Supreme(MP) 135

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
S.M.N. RAINA, N.C. DWIVEDI, JJ.
Sital Kumar Hemrajani
Vs.
J.B. Mangharam & Co. and another
M.P. No. 216 of 1970
Decided On: 31.10.1972

Headnote:(1) Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (M.P.)-S. 2 (13)-employee-meaning of-Welfare Officer-is an employee-word 'technical'-has not a restricted meaning.

       A Labour Welfare Officer cannot be said to be employed mainly in managerial capacity within the meaning of paragraph (iii) of sub-clause (b) of clause (13) of section 2 of the Act and is as such not excluded under the definition. He is in a sense a technical worker and since his wages did not exceed Rs. 500/-per mensem he was an employee as defined in section 2 (13) of the Act. [Para 10

       The word 'technical' occuring in section 2 (13) of the Act cannot be restricted so as to apply only to persons doing some technical work of the Factory itself. The work of Welfare Officer is also of a highly technical nature inasmuch as he has to advise the management on various intricate problems for maintaining a proper relationship between the management and the labour. AIR 1961 Assam 30 relied on. (1967) II LLJ 355 distinguished. [Para 11

       (2) Master & Servant-probation-when becomes permanent-probation for six months-permanent status not acquired after expiry of the period. A probationer does not automatically acquire the status of a permanent member of a service on the expiry of the probationary period unless the Rules under which he is appointed expressly provide for such a result. AIR 1962 SC 1711 relied on.

       An employee appointed on probation for six months continues as a probationer even after the period of six months if at the end of the period his services are neither terminated nor he is confirmed. In the instant case the period of probation was expressly extended for a further period of six months and therefore, it is obvious that the petitioner continued to remain on probation. AIR 1964 SC 806 relied on. [Paras 14 & 15

       (3) Industrial Employment Standing Orders Rules, 1963 (M.P.)-Standing Order 2 (J)-probationer-when becomes permanent employee-service must be 'satisfactory'-'satisfactory' should be to the satisfaction of the employer-this is a question of fact.

       It is clear from the definition of 'permanent employee' given in Standing Order 2 (1) that a persons acquired the status of a permanent employee on completing six months satisfactory service in a clear vacancy. The question, therefore, for consideration is whether the petitioner had completed six months satisfactory service. The expression 'satisfactory service' has not been defined in the standing orders but looking to the context in which this expression is used it is obvious that it means service to the satisfaction of the employer. Whether an employee has acquired the status of a permanent employee is a question of fact. [Para 16

       (4) Constitution of India-Arts. 226 & 227-finding of fact-cannot be challenged.

       The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution is not competent to set aside a finding of fact recorded by the Industrial Tribunal. AIR 1957 SC 264 relied on. [Para 17

       (5) Industrial Disputes Act, 1960 (M.P.)-S.66-scope of the revisional powers of the Industrial Court.

       The language of section 66 of the Act being similar to that of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the scope of interference in revision under the two sections is almost identical. Under proviso (c) to sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Act it is open to the Industrial Court to interfere where the Labour Court acts illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction.

       Where the Labour Court acts arbitrarily in contravention of the settled principles of law or the rules of procedure resulting in gross miscarriage of justice it acts illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction within the meaning of proviso (c) to sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Act. Such an error certainly pertains to jurisdiction and can be rectified in exercise of the revisional powers. AIR 1965 SC 553 referred to. [Para 19

       (6) Factories Rules, 1962 (M. P.)-R. 89- Welfare Officer-nature of his duty.

       No doubt it is part of duty of the Labour Welfare Officer to take measures to promote well-being of the workers in the factories but this does not mean that he could be rude, impolite and discourtious to the management in the discharge of his duties. He has a difficult and delicate role to play but all the same he is an employee of the management and must behave in an extremely polite and courtious manner so as to maintain discipline. [Para 24