The predominant nature of an employee's duties determines if they qualify as a 'workman' under industrial law, specifically regarding the scopes of technical versus managerial responsibilities.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 waives notice on behalf of respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2, trade union. As Respondent No.1 is the only contesting party, the Petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. By this petition, the challenge is to the order dated 19th July 2014 passed in Complaint ULP No.75 of 2012 dismissing the complaint by holding that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act of 1947”). This petition has been preferred only by the petitioner although Complaint ULP No.75 of 2012 was filed on behalf of petitioner and 19 others and as such this Court has examined the issue qua the Petitioner only.

3. By an amendment to the Petition, a challenge was incorporated to the order dated 19th October 2019 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint ULP No.30 of 2013 filed by the petitioner challenging the termination of services of petitioner, which came to be dismissed for non prosecution.

4. During the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner agreed to confine his challenge to the determination of the issue as to whether the petitioner falls within the definition of “workman” and as such this court had confined itself to the validity of judgment and order dated 19th July 2014 with liberty to the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings as regards the dismissal of Complaint ULP No.30 of 2013 for non prosecution.

5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as under:

Complaint of unfair labour practice came to be filed by 20 employees of Respondent No.1-company under section 28 read with Item Nos.1 (a), (b) and (c), 2 (a) and (b), and 3 of Schedule II and Item Nos.5,6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short “MRTU Act”).

During the pendency of complaint, transfer order came to be issued to the Petitioner directing him to report at Pantnagar on 5th August 2012. An application for interim relief was filed below Exhibit-U-2 seeking direction for withdrawal of the transfer order and to restrain the Respondent No.1 from changing the service conditions. In response to the application seeking interim relief, Respondent No.1 raised a preliminary objection that the complainants therein are not covered by the definition of "workman" under section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 or "employee" within the meaning of section 3(5) of the MRTU Act.

6. Considering the objection of Respondent No.1 preliminary issues came to be framed as under :

1) Whether the complainants are covered within the definition of “workmen” as contemplated under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act ?

2) Whether the complaint is maintainable ?

The issues came to be answered as against the complainants and consequently the complaint came to be dismissed.

7. Heard Mr. More, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Kawre appearing for Respondent No.1.

8. Mr. More, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of Complaint ULP No.75 of 2012, interim order came to be passed on 30th July 2012 directing Respondent No.1 not to pass adverse orders affecting the service conditions of the complainants therein. He would submit that despite the order of 30th July 2012, the petitioner was not allowed to resume his duties and back dated transf