AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
Aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the opposite party No. 2, the Deputy Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
It has been vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that while passing the impugned order the opposite party No. 2 has committed an error in deciding the petitioner is a Workman which solely lies within the domain of the Labour Court. He further submitted that opposite party No. 2 has failed to consider the material fact that the petitioner had never been designated as Manager and was paid salary of Rs. 3000/- as a workman and that in the pay certificate issued by the emplower/opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 there is no mention of his designation as Manager.
Placing reliance on a Apex Court decision in Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1959 (59) FLR 734 (SC) learned Counsel for the contended that the dispute whether the persons raising the dispute are workmen or not, the same cannot be decided by the Government in exercise of its administration function. Thus the Conciliation Officer has exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that the petitioner is not a workman.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also'' relied upon a decision of Uttaranchal High Court passed in the case of Ramesh v. Assistant Labour Commissioner and Anr. 1989 (100) FLR 651.
I have gone through the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and find force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Conciliation Officer is not the authority competent to determine that whether a person is a workman or not by passing, an administrative order. Uttaranchal High Court has also expressed the similar view while placing reliance on the Supreme Court decisions laid down in Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangli (supra) and Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others,
In view of the aforesaid legal proposition the order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the Conciliation Officer cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Costs easy.