Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SOMNATH TULSHIRAM GALANDE – Appellant
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER-IIND LABOUR COURT and ANR – Respondent
LPA 294/2007
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 294 OF 2007
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 7300 OF 2003.
Somnath Tulshiram Galande
)
Post Box No. 781, S.P. College Post Office,
)
Pune-411 030
)...Appellant
versus
1. Presiding Officer, II nd Labour Court,
)
Pune (State of Maharashtra
)
2. (A) M/s. Meltron Engineering Industries,
)
alias Melton Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
)
50/11, Vadgaon Sheri (Near Praj),
)
Off Nagar Road, Pune-411 014
)
(B) Sunil Shamsunder Kariwala
)
Bungalow No.12, Talera Park Co-operative
)
Housing Society, Opp. Pushpak Park Road No.1
)
Off Nagar Road, Kalyani Nagar,
)
Pune-411 014
)
( C)M/s. Meltron Engineering Industries,
)
alias Melton Engineers Pvt. Ltd., 14 Nazir
)
Bldg., Calicut Street, Ballard Estate,
)
Mumbai-400 038
)
(D) Smt. Prabha Vishwanath Kariwala,
)
58, Rajabahadur Mansion, 1st floor,
)
32, Mumbai Samachar Marg,
)
Mumbai-400 001
)
-2-
(E) Smt. Prabha Vishwanath Kariwala,
)
5,Sheela Apartments, 1st floor,
)
(14 Storeyed Bldg.), Mahalaxmi Temple Road, )
& Bhulabhai Desai Road, Near State Bank of )
India, Mumbai-400 026
)
(F) Vishalsingh Ganeshsingh Rathod,
)
Survey No. 56, Mama Housing Society,
)
Near Pooja Super Market, Near Shree
)
Fabrication, Vadgaon Sheri, Pune-411 014.
)
(G) Suresh Chandra Beohar,
)
M/s. Jeevan Hi-Tech Industries,
)
Survey No. 50/125/130, Off Nagar Road,
)
(Behind Praj.) Vadvaon Sheri,
)
Pune-411 014.
)..Respondents
Mr. S.T. Galande, petitioner-in-person, present.
Mr. P.K. Rele, Senior Advocate, with Mr. V.A. Tayade for the
respondents.
CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &
J.P. DEVADHAR, J.
Judgment reserved on : January 14, 2008
Judgment delivered on: January 31, 2008
JUDGMENT (Per Swatanter Kumar, C.J.):
1.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the learned single
Judge dated 13th August, 2007, passed in Writ Petition No. 7300 of
2003, whereby the learned single Judge, while dismissing the petition,
has observed that the decision of the Labour Court need not be
-3-
interfered with under writ jurisdiction as there is no perversity in the
conclusions drawn by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has held the
appellant not to be a workman.
2.
The necessary facts are that according to the appellant he
was appointed as Quality Assurance In-charge vide letter of
appointment dated 25th April, 1994 , in furtherance to which the
appellant joined the post in the pay scale of Rs. 1850-170-2700-200-
3700-250-4950. According to the appellant, he was working in the
Quality Control Department and was doing inspecting job and related
technical and clerical work. However, the services of the appellant
were terminated by the management vide its letter dated 8th September,
1995. This action of the respondent-management was challenged by
the appellant who claimed to be a ‘workman’ within the meaning of
Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred
to as “the Act”, and, inter alia, pleaded that the services of the appellant
were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the
Act.
-4-
3.
The appellant raised an industrial dispute which was referred
to the Second Labour Court for adjudication. The respondent company
raised an issue that the appellant was not a workman under Section 2
(s) of the Act and the duties of the appellant were managerial and
supervisory in nature. The Labour Court after hearing both the parties
and the evidence adduced before it came to the conclusion that the
appellant was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the
Act and neither did he prove that his termination was illegal, by its award
dated 29th August, 2002.
4.
Dissatisfied by the above award, the appellant filed writ
petition which came to be dismissed by the learned si
