AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.L. Gokhale, CJ.
Heard Mr. K.P. Agarwal learned Senior Counsel assisted by Miss. Bushramaryam for the appellant. Counsel for the respondents is not present.
The only question in this appeal is as to whether the learned Single Judge was right in directing the appellantpetitioner to resort to alternative remedy i.e. to take his dispute to the Labour Court.
The case of the appellant is that he was working as a Depot Manager from 1981. He was suspended under an order dated 20th June, 1998. After the enquiry he was found guilty and, therefore, his services were terminated. He filed Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 8358 of 2004 to challenge the order by which his services were terminated. The learned Single Judge straight away accepted the submission of the respondents that the appellant had approached the High Court without exhausting the alternative remedy. Thereafter, the learned Judge referred to various judgments wherein it has been held that if alternative remedy is available to the litigant concerned he must avail it.
In the instant case, however, the principle submission of the appellant was not considered by the learned Single Judge as to whether the appellantworkman could be directed to approach the forum under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''). The definition of a workman is given under Section 2(z) of the Act. It is in pari materia with the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A workman includes a person who has been doing any manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work. However, it does not include a person who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity or who is employed in a supervisory capacity and draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem.
In the instant case, the appellant being a Depot Manager was the incharge of the Depot and as such his duties were essentially managerial. In any case, the learned Single Judge did not go into that question at all. We are inclined to accept the contention advanced by Mr. K.P. Agarwal that being a Depot Manager the appellant was performing managerial duty and, therefore, would not be covered under the definition of workman.
For this very limited reason, we allow this Appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge without going into the legality or otherwise of the termination order. The petition is restored to the file of the learned Single Judge. No order as to costs.