9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the section excludes four classes of employees including a person employed in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs.10,000/- after amendment (Rs.1,600/- before amendment) per month or exercises functions mainly of a managerial nature. In this legal backdrop, let us first examine, whether the employee falls within the definition of workman . During the course of examination, the employee deposed as W.W.1 that he was not an executive cadre employee and there were senior officers to supervise and control his work. But, in the cross-examination, he asserted that he was supervising the work of two juniors who were working under him. According to M.W.1- Senior Manager of the management, the employee was an executive of the management and the management appointed two Junior Engineers and their works were being supervised by the said employee The law is well settled that the determinative factor for workman covered under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, is the principal duties and functions performed by an employee in the establishment and not merely the designation of his post. Further, the onus of proving the nature of employment rests on the person claiming to be a workman wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n , JJ. JUDGMENT R. MAHADEVAN, J. Leave granted. 2. These two appeals arise from an order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack Hereinafter shortly referred to as the High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2083 of 2011, whereby, the High Court partly allowed the said writ petition filed by M/s. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd For short, the management challenging the award dated 22.09.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar Hereinafter shortly referred to as the Labour Court in I.D. Case No.27 of 2007. By the impugned order, the High Court set aside the award of the Labour Court to the extent that the employee is to be reinstated and to be paid compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu of back wages, while upholding the finding of the Labour Court that the employee falls under the definition of workman as given in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 For short, the I.D. Act . 3. Feeling aggrieved and being dissatisfied with the respective portion of the impugned order of the High Court, both the parties have preferred the instant appeals. 4. A few facts which are necessary for disposal of both the appeals, are as follows: The management is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of typed set of papers, the learned senior counsel for the employee made the following submissions: (i) In Industrial Law, interpreted and applied in the perspective of Part IV of the Constitution, the benefit of reasonable doubt on law and facts, if there be such doubt, must go to the weaker section, Labour K.C.P. Employees Association v. K.C.P. Ltd (1978) 2 SCC 42 ; (ii) Concurrent findings of facts rendered by the Courts below cannot be interfered with by the writ Court Southern Ispat Ltd v. State of Kerala, (2004) 4 SCC 68 ; (iii) The determining factor for a person to be qualified as workman as defined under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act is the nature of work done by him and not merely on the designation of his post Shard Kumar v. NCT of Delhi, (2002) 4 SCC 490 . Whether or not an employee is a workman under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act is required to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties and functions; and the designation of an employee is not of much importance and what is important is the nature of duties being performed by the employee S. K. Maini v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd, (1994) 3 SCC 510 ; (iv) Merely having a junior does not make an employee a sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indicated that after confirmation, the termination of service would require one month notice period or one month salary in lieu of notice by either of the parties. That apart, the employee was given promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (E C) on 25.05.2000 and his services as Asst. Engineer (E C) in group 2A (Admn) were regularized with effect from 01.05.2001 with a total pay of Rs.6,805.45 per month; and it was categorically stated in the confirmation letter dated 30.04.2001 that all other terms and conditions mentioned in the Appointment Order dated 07.06.1997 shall continue to apply. In the light of the rules of the company and the terms of the employment orders, the management relieved the employee from duty by paying one month salary in lieu of notice on 08.10.2003, which was accepted and also encashed by the employee. Hence, there is no procedural violation of law on the part of the management in terminating the services of the employee. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the order of the High Court setting aside the award of the Labour Court to the extent of reinstating the employee with compensation in lieu of back wages, requires no interference by this Court. 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of workman . 12. According to the employee, he comes within the meaning of workman as given in section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and the management without following the legal procedure, relieved him from service abruptly and hence, the same is illegal termination. On the other hand, it was the case of the management that the nature of the duties and functions performed by the employee was in the supervisory capacity and he was drawing a salary of above Rs.1,600/- and therefore, he does not belong to the category of workmen . To prove their respective claims, the employee and the Senior Manager of the management were examined as W.W.1 and M.W.1; and Exts.W1 to W5 and Exts.A to D were marked before the Labour Court. 13. Evidently, the employee was appointed as Junior Engineer (E C) with effect from 07.06.1997 under Group 3 (Admn) with a salary of Rs.4761.75 per month. Clause 14 of the appointment order issued by the management makes it clear that after confirmation of the job, the termination of service will be by one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice by either side. It is not in dispute that the posting of the employee in the cadre of Junior Engineer wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry. As such, applying the pre-amended provision of section 2(s), since the employee was terminated from service on 08.10.2003 and was drawing salary of more than Rs.1,600/-, he does not come within the definition of workman . Therefore, we hold that the employee is not a workman as defined under section 2(s) and is not covered by the provisions of the I.D. Act. In view of the same, the order of the High Court upholding the finding of the Labour Court that the employee was a workman within the definition of post-amended section 2(s), is liable to be set aside. 17. As regards the grant of reinstatement of the employee in service and payment of compensation in lieu of back wages by the Labour Court, it appears to us that in terms of clause 14 of the appointment letter, the employee was required to be paid one month salary in lieu of notice. As is evident from the letter dated 08.10.2003 of the management, the employee was relieved from duty with effect from that date; and he was issued with a cheque bearing No.019345 for Rs.6995.85 drawn on UT1 Bank Ltd, Bhubaneswar, towards one month salary in lieu of notice, as per the rules of company and in terms of clause 14 of the appointment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
