Amravati Coal and Cke Depot vs Uddavrao Marotrao Mankar and Member, Indusdtrial Tribunal

Vasanti A. Naik, J.—By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Member, Industrial Court on 6.12.2000 allowing the revision application filed by the respondent / complainant.

The respondent is the original complainant. He filed a complaint before the Labour Court, Amravati u/s 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act of 1971 seeking his reinstatement in service and alleged unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act of 1971.

Since it was mentioned in the paragraph 1 of the complaint that from 1974 the respondent was working as a Manager, a preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner to the tenability of the complaint on the ground that the respondent was not a workman within the meaning of the term under the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was stated in the preliminary objection that the respondent was discharging the duties of supervisory and managerial nature and the complaint filed by respondent was not tenable. The complainant denied that he was discharging the duties of a Manager and was supervising and controlling the affairs of the firm. On perusing the complaint and the say, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amravati dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent by an order dated 28.10.1993. It was observed in the order dated 28.10.1993 that the complainant was working as Manager and hence the complaint was not tenable. The order passed by the Labour Court on 28.10.1993 was challenged by the respondent in a revision before the Industrial Court, Amravati. The Industrial Court, Amravati by the impugned order dated 6.12.2000 set aside the order passed by the Labour Court on 28.10.1993 and directed the Labour Court to decide the matter in the light of the observations made in the impugned order.

Shri V.M. Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had himself mentioned in paragraph 1 of the complaint that he was working as Manager and since the respondent was discharging his duties as Manager and had supervisory control over the affairs of the firm, he was not a workman, within the meaning of the term under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court had rightly dismissed the complaint by an order dated 28.10.1993 and it was not proper on the part of the Industrial Court to have allowed the revision filed by the respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that on a perusal of the objection and the say of the complainant, it is clear that the complainant was working in the managerial capacity and was not a workman.

None appears on behalf of the respondent/ complainant.

On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the complaint, preliminary objection, the say of the complainant, as also the order dated 28.10.1993 and impugned order dated 26.12.2000, it appears that the order passed by the Industrial Court at Amravati on 6.12.2000 is just and proper. The respondent had merely stated in paragraph 1 of the complaint that he was working as a Manager. None of the paragraphs of the complaint speak about the duties which were actually performed by the respondent. Though in the preliminary objection it is stated by the petitioner that the respondent was discharging the duties of Manager and used to supervise and control affairs of the firm, this fact has been specifically denied by the respondent in the say filed by the respondent. In such a background, in the absence of any evidence or in the absence of the admitted position that the respondent was performing the duties in the managerial and supervisory capacity, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court had committed an error in dismissing the complaint by the order dated 28.10.1993. The Industrial Court rightly held that the designation of a person would not be a decisive factor for deciding the question as to whether the person falls within the definition of the term workman or not. The Industrial Court rightly held that it is the nature of the work and the duties which is a decisive factor. These aspects, according to the Industrial Court were not considered by the Labour Court and the complaint was dismissed merely because the word "Manager" was used in paragraph 1 of the complaint. The Industrial Court rightly held that the order of the Labour Court could not have been sustained as it was not a reasoned order. The Industrial Court observed that this aspect of the matter needs to be considered in detail and it is desirable that the court should decide this issue only after permitting the parties to file their pleadings and tender evidence on the same. The approach of the Industrial Court in considering the revision is just and reasonable, so also is the impugned order as the Industrial Court has clearly stated that it would be desirable that the parties should be allowed to file the pleadings and the material documents before the Labour Court for deciding the issue of jurisdiction. There is nothing wrong with the order passed by the Industrial Court on 6.12.2000 as the complaint does not disclose the nature of the duties performed by the respondent and it is not an admitted position that the respondent was performing his duties in the managerial capacity.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Rule stands discharged