AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sodhi, J.—In a reference u/s 10(i) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, a controversy arose whether the employee concerned, Shri K.C. Malhotra, Respondent was a workman as defined in the Act. This became the subject matter of a preliminary issue which came to be decided in favour of the said Respondent. It is this finding which is now questioned. The challenge being mainly on the ground that in arriving at this finding, the Labour Court had failed to take into account the evidence having a material bearing on the issue.
In considering this matter, the Labour Court in its impugned order of October 20, i982 (Annexure P/5) observed that it had been orally stated that Shri K. C Malhotra had authority to sanction leave, appoint and remove workers and distribute work to persons working under him and also check and control their work. If he had such powers and worked as such there must be some record with the management to show this, but no such record had been produced; whereas Shri K.C. Malhotra and his co-workers had proved that he was working on a machine with his own hands and was a highly skilled person and on that account he was given so much salary. The Labour Court then went on to conclude that the management had failed to prove that Shri K.C. Malhotra was supervising the factory, or was working as a Manager thereof or that he performed any managerial functions.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, counsel for the Petitioner-management assailed this finding by laying grot stress upon the letter of appointment of Shri K.C. Malhotra (Annexure P/3). According to the terms thereof Shri K.C. Malhotra was appointed as Foreman at a salary of Rs. 900/- per month. It was specifically provided therein that as Foreman he would be incharge of the factory and would supervise direct and control other employees working under him.
Reference was next made to the promotion order (Annexure P/4) of January 1, 1981 whereby Shri K. C Malhotra was promoted as Manager with the enhanced salary of Rs. 1100/- per month. Both these documents were on the record of the Labour Court as Exhibit M-l and M-2.
Counsel for the Petitioner rightly contended that the documents (Annexure P/3 and P/4) provided important evidence of the nature of the duties and functions of Shrt K. C Malhotra Respondent, and consequently his status in the factory. The Labour Court, it was argued, had thus fallen in error in failing to take due note of them in holding against the Petitioner.
A reading of the impugned order would show that both the letter of appointment as also the promotion order, no doubt find mention therein, but with no finding being recorded with regard to there. Such finding was indeed imperative particularly when Shri K.C. Malhotra, Respondent had denied having received them.
Counsel for the Petitioner next referred to the production register which was produced before the Labour Court with a view to show the work done by Shri K.C. Malhotra. The preparation of this record had been denied by him. This too was mentioned in the impugned order, but again with no finding regarding its acceptance or rejection.
In adjudicating upon a dispute referred to it, it is incumbent upon the Labour Court to consider all the evidence led in the case and the order rendered must indicate that all material evidence on record was duly considered in arriving at the conclusions recorded therein. In other words, the findings arrived at must be supported by reasons founded upon the material on record. This is not to direct or even suggest any particular Format for the order or language to be employed therein How she Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal expresses itself in its order would inevitably differ from case to case, but it must always show that material evidence was taken note of in support of the conclusions arrived at Mere listing of the evidence and/or rival contentions as in the impugned order here, can obviously not suffice. Considered in this light the impugned order cannot be sustained and the case has thus to be remitted to the Labour court for fresh decision according to law.
Before concluding, reference must also be made to another aspect of the matter here namely, the splitting up of the points in dispute into preliminary issues and the issues on merits, with the former to be decided first and the latter to be taken up thereafter depending upon the decision on such preliminary issues. This practice has been frowned upon by the Supreme Court in D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration1, where Chinnappa Reddy, J observed, "There was a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy to decide preliminary issues first But the time appears to have armed for a reversal of that policy. We think it is better that tribunals, particularly those entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where delay lead to misery and jeopardise industrial peace, should decide all issues in dispute at the same time without trying some of them as preliminary issues." The Hon''ble Judge further observed, "Tribunals and courts who are requested to decide preliminary questions must therefore ask themselves whether such threshold part-adjudication Is really necessary and whether it will not lead to other woeful consequences. After all tribunals like industrial tribunals are constituted to decide expeditiously special kinds of disputes and their jurisdiction to decide is not to be stifled by all manner of preliminary objections and journeyings up and down."
The Labour Court will no doubt keep these observations in view in dealing with the dispute referred.
This Writ Petition is thus allowed for the reasons and in terms as set out above There will be no order as to costs.
Petition allowed.