Management of M/s. Gajraj Estates (P) Ltd. vs Their Workman Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal and Another

Prakash Tatia, C.J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 13th July, 2011 passed in W.P (L) No. 4223/ 2008, whereby the award passed by the Labour Court, Dhanbad, dated 2nd April, 2008 in Reference Case No. 1/1996 has been upheld, however, with modification in the award of back-wages by reducing it by 25%.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact, the respondent was not a workman within the definition of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because he was excluded by sub-clause (iii) of clause (s) of section 2, which excluded the person who was mainly working in the managerial or administrative capacity. It is submitted that the respondent himself in his reply before the Labour Court admitted that he was handling and dealing with other companies also and he was given one scooter with free fuel and, therefore, he was discharging the duty of managerial nature.

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the respondent was not entitled to back-wages because he failed to prove that he was not engaged in gainful work during the entire period.

We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the reasons given in the award as well as in the impugned order dated 13th July, 2011.

Firstly it is a question of fact as to what duties were assigned to the respondent and finding recorded by the Labour Court as well as by the learned Single Judge after appreciation of evidence that the respondent was working on the post of Accountant. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to submit that since he was dealing with other companies and maintaining all accounts and its reconciliation etc., he was mot a workman.

We are of the considered opinion that the respondent, who was admittedly appointed on the post of Accountant, was, therefore, assigned the duty of realization of the amount from other companies and for that purpose, he was provided with a scooter and fuel and this was the stand taken by the workman. This fact has not been disputed and therefore, the finding recorded by the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge is rightly based on evidence and no managerial function has been assigned to the respondent to the effect. So far as the award of back-wages is concerned, learned Single Judge has considered this aspect and reduced the back-wages by 25%. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order In L.P.A jurisdiction.

Therefore, this L.P.A having no merit is dismissed.