1989 (6) TMI 284 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "employee" under Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (BIR Act).
2. Determination of whether the respondent was employed in a supervisory or technical capacity.
3. Validity of the respondent's termination and entitlement to reinstatement and back wages.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the term "employee" under Section 3(13) of the BIR Act:

The petition raises a question relating to the interpretation of the word "employee" as found in Section 3(13) of the BIR Act. The definition of "employee" includes any person employed to do any skilled or unskilled work for hire or reward in any industry but excludes persons employed in a managerial, administrative, supervisory, or technical capacity drawing basic pay exceeding Rs. 1,000 per month. The Court emphasized that prior amendments to the BIR Act have modified the definition to exclude certain categories of employees based on their pay and the nature of their duties.

2. Determination of whether the respondent was employed in a supervisory or technical capacity:

Supervisory Capacity:
The company contended that the respondent was employed in a supervisory capacity. However, the Labour Court found that the respondent could not be regarded as being employed in a supervisory capacity because his duties involved looking after machines rather than overseeing the work of subordinates. The Court noted that supervision implies overseeing the work of others, which was not the case here. The Industrial Court concurred, stating that the company failed to discharge its burden of proving that the respondent was employed in a supervisory capacity.

Technical Capacity:
The company also argued that the respondent was employed in a technical capacity. The Labour Court, supported by the Industrial Court, found no sufficient evidence to classify the respondent's work as technical. Despite the respondent's involvement in tasks such as operating cameras and advising on the suitability of new recruits and materials, the Courts concluded that these duties did not require the application of special technical knowledge or expertise. The Courts highlighted that technical work involves the application of specialized knowledge or training, which was not demonstrated in the respondent's case.

3. Validity of the respondent's termination and entitlement to reinstatement and back wages:

The respondent's services were terminated without assigning any reason or holding an inquiry into any act of misconduct. The Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service but awarded only 50% of the back wages, assuming the respondent might have been employed elsewhere during the interim period. The Industrial Court, upon appeal, upheld the reinstatement and directed full back wages, noting that the burden of proving the respondent was not an employee lay with the company, which it failed to discharge.

Conclusion:

The High Court, upon reviewing the evidence and judgments of the Labour and Industrial Courts, agreed with the findings that the respondent was neither employed in a supervisory nor a technical capacity. Consequently, the respondent was deemed an "employee" under the BIR Act, entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. The petition by the company was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with costs.