9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent was a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act versus the Rajasthan Shops & Establishments Act, 1958. 3. Repugnancy between the Industrial Disputes Act and the Rajasthan Shops & Establishments Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the respondent was a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: The main question requiring consideration was whether the respondent was a workman. The definition of "workman" under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act was pivotal. The definition includes any person employed in any industry to do manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work for hire or reward, but excludes those employed in managerial or administrative capacities or those in supervisory roles drawing wages exceeding Rs. 1600 per month. The Court referenced multiple precedents to interpret the term "workman." In Mcleod and Co. v. Sixth Industrial Tribunal, it was emphasized that terms like "supervisory," "managerial," and "administrative" should not be conflated. The Court noted that a supervisor need not be a manager or an administrator and that supervision does not necessarily equate to managerial work. In All India Reserve Bank Employees Association v. Reserve Bank of India, the Court distinguished between clerical and supervisory duties, stating that assigning duties and distributing work constituted supervision. Similarly, in Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distribution Co. Of India v. Burmah Shell Management Staff Association, it was held that the primary nature of work determines whether an employee is a workman. Applying these principles, the Court found that the respondent's duties were mainly reporting and checking on behalf of the management, which did not constitute supervisory work. The respondent had no independent authority to make decisions binding on the company. Thus, the Division Bench's conclusion that the respondent was a workman was upheld. 2. Applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act versus the Rajasthan Shops & Establishments Act, 1958: The next issue was whether the Industrial Disputes Act or the Rajasthan Shops & Establishments Act applied. Section 28A of the Rajasthan Act provides protections against dismissal without reasonable cause and mandates a complaint procedure for dismissed employees. However, Section 37 of the Rajasthan Act states that it does not affect any rights or privileges more favorable to an employee under any other law. The Court noted that Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, amended in 1965, allows individual workmen to seek redress for disputes. The Rajasthan Act, with its relevant provisions inserted in 1972, is a subsequent law. Under Article 254(2) of the Constitution, if a State law reserved for the President's assent conflicts with an earlier Union law, the State law prevails. The Court found no conflict between the two Acts as they are supplemental. Both Acts address the rights of dismissed employees but do not conflict in substance. The Industrial Disputes Act does not prescribe a limitation period for raising disputes, unlike the Rajasthan Act, which has a six-month limitation period. The Court held that the Rajasthan Act could not curtail rights under the Industrial Disputes Act, and thus the latter prevailed. 3. Repugnancy between the Industrial Disputes Act and the Rajasthan Shops & Establishments Act: The issue of repugnancy was addressed by examining whether the two Acts operated in the same field and whether one was inconsistent with the other. The Court cited Deep Chand v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, which outlined tests for inconsistency, including whether one law is intended to be a complete code or if both laws seek to exercise power over the same subject matter. The Court concluded that while both Acts dealt with employee rights upon dismissal, they were not inconsistent or repugnant. The basic test of repugnancy-where one law's operation negates the other's-was not met. The dismissal under the Rajasthan Act was due to limitation, not on merits, and thus did not conflict with the Industrial Disputes Act's provisions. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision that the respondent was a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. It also affirmed that there was no repugnancy between the Industrial Disputes Act and the Rajasthan Shops & Establishments Act. The appeals were dismissed, and the reference before the Tribunal was directed to proceed expeditiously.
|
