AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rekha Sharma, J.—The Petitioner/workman has assailed the award of the Labour Court dated September 04, 2010 holding that he was not a workman in terms of Section 2(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently, further holding that the dispute raised by the Petitioner that his services were illegally terminated by the Respondent/Management, was not an industrial dispute meriting adjudication by a Labour Court.
Admittedly, the Petitioner was appointed with the Respondent as a Senior Scientific Assistant and subsequently, promoted to the post of Research Officer ''B''. The only evidence that the Petitioner led in support of his claim that he was a workman, was by way of his own affidavit. The Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the Petitioner was heading research projects and in support, placed on the record three projects Exh.WW1/M10 to Exh.WW1/M12 which were completed under his supervision. The Respondent also produced 8 leave applications Exh.WW1/M13 to Exh.WW1/M20 to show that during the course of his duties, Petitioner was recommending leaves of some people working under him, and not only that, he also wrote confidential reports of some staff members which were placed on the record as Exh.WW1/M5 to Exh.WW1/M9.
The Petitioner has tried to counter the claim of the Respondent by contending that the confidential reports were written by him under compulsive directions of one Shri Debelkar and against those directions, he had protested both orally and in writing.
On a perusal of the impugned award, I find that the Labour Court has held that the Petitioner though alleged that he protested against the directions of Shri Debelkar, both verbally and in writing, but nothing was brought on the record to buttress the submission that he had made written protests. The Labour Court has also held that there was nothing to indicate that the recommendations of the leave applications by the Petitioner were made under any protest.
Having regard to the fact that the Petitioner was holding the rank of Research Officer ''B'' at the time he was dismissed from service; the further fact that the research projects Exh.WW1/M10 to Exh.WW1/M12 were completed under his supervision, and yet further fact that he recommended leave applications Exh.WW1/M13 to Exh.WW1/M20 without protest or demur and wrote confidential reports Exh.WW1/M5 to Exh.WW1/M9 of the persons working under him, it will not be correct to say that his status in the Respondent''s establishment was that of a workman. The nature of work that he was doing indicates that he was performing administrative functions besides doing research work.
For the fore-going reasons, there is no infirmity in the impugned award. The writ-petition has no merit. The same is dismissed.