AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M. Punchhi, J.—The Chief Commissioner, Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, the appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Union Territory, Chandigarh:-
Whether the termination of services of Shri Rajesh Garg, workman, by the management is contrary to law and invalid ? If so, to what relief is he entitled ?
The Tribunal vide its award dated May 5, 1977 (Annexure P-6), the subject matter of challenge in this petition, came to the conclusion that the employee was not a workman, though the Management was an industry, and as such the employee was not entitled to any relief. It is this view of the matter which is challenged in these proceedings.
The Petitioner was employed, as is the admitted case, as a Legal Assistant by the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Limited, Chandigarh. He remained in service from December S. 1971 to June 2, 1974. He was relieved of his duty with effect from June 3, 1974, in accordance with his terms of employment. Whereas the Petitioner clamed that he was a workman within the meaning of the term known u/s 2(s) of the Act, the management. Corporation pleaded that is was neither an industry nor was the Petitioner a workman because he was working mainly in an administrative and supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs. 500/- per mensem. The Petitioner, refuting the claim of the management, had in his replication pleaded that he was performing duties of a clerical nature and that he had no supervisory or administrative powers. On these pleading, the Tribunal framed the following preliminary issue:
Whether the Punjab State Tubewell corporation is not an ''industry'' and the Petitioner is not a workman as defined in the industrial Disputes Act?
As Said before, the trubunal found that the Punjab State Tubewell corporation was an industry. That aspect of the case does not engage us at all. The dispute centres around as to whether the Petitioner is a workman. That question being jurisdictional in nature of duties performed by award, extracted as below, provide the basis:
Shri K.N. Gupta R.W.1 explained the duties of the Petitioner. He said that he had primarily been engaged to tender legal advice to the Corporation. Some documents on behalf of the Corporation used to be drafted by him. Some other documents received from outside authorities used to be checked by him. The Petitioner himself admitted that he used to check the agreements bank guarantees etc. from the legal point of view. The Petitioner could hardly urge that his main work was clerical and thus an effort was made to get himself covered by the word ''technical'' at the time arguments in the case were heard ... ... ...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
The word ''technical'' would mean something pertaining to art or belonging to a particular art or profession.
The Petitioner while giving his statement referred to a certain note of the Secretary of the Corporation, dated 29-5-1972 wherein this remark was passed that he was not holding any independents office and that he should put up a note and seek instructions; rather issue instructions in his note. It was then said that the Petitioner did not have authority to sanction leave to his employees. All this would not make the work of the Petitioner a clerical one. So far as the legal aspect of the work was concerned, there was nobody else employed by the Corporation who could che4ck him and thus his work was not of a routine nature but a specialised one in which knowledge of law was required. It is a different matter that the work was not such which could be said to be technical. However, it could not at all. said to be a clerical one.
Now the comprehensive definition of the word ''workman'' means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work or hire or reward; This definition has given rise to many a dispute and the law reports are full with them. The Supreme court now has in S.K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra and Another, clarified the position by summing up the law in these words:
The words ''any skiled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical of clerical work'' are not intended to limit or narrow the amplitude o the definition of workman; on the other hand they indicate and empasise the broad sweep of the definition which is designed to cover all manner of persons employed in an industry, irrespective of whether they are engaged in skilled work or unskilled work, manual work supervisory work, technical work of clerical work. Quite obviously the broad intention is to take in the entire ''labour force'' and exclude the managerial force. That of course, is as it should be.
That was case of a Develpment Officer could not by nay stretch of imagination be said to be engaged in any administrative or managerial work. Once those duties were excluded, he was taken to have fallen in the definition of the word ''workman'' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. On the same line of reasoning Mr. M.R. Agnihotri, Learned Counsel for the petitoner, says that the duties of the Petitioner, as afore extracted, were neither supervisory nor managerial.
The Petitioner''s duty at best was that of a skilled clerk having in his clerical duties to put up notes and seek instructions. Besides that as urged he had to tender legal advice when asked by the Corporation and draft and approve documents as asked by the corporation from the legal point of view. The duties of the Petitioner have even been termed by the Learned Counsel to "techno-clerical" with the aid of legal knowledge which the Petitioner possessed. And on these grounds it is contended that these duties could by no stretch of imagination he regarded as administrative or managerial, especially who the Petitioner had no administrative control over anybody and was rightly designated to ''assist'' the Corporation in matters asked by it. Once it is held that the Petitioner was not working in the Corporation in any administrative or managerial capacity, he has conversely to be held a ''workman'' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. Mr. Bhagirath Das, Learned Counsel for the Respondent, has not been able to meet the point as raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the view which logically follows. Thus, the Petitioner has to be and obviously must be held a ''workman'' within the meaning of the Act and the preliminary issue decided by the Tribunal in that regard to have been decided on a jurisdictional error.
On the Petitioner''s being held a workman, the final curtain cannot be drawn by this Court and the matter has to be remitted back Petitioner was contrary to law and invalid and further whether he is entitled to ant relief. For this purpose, the matter need be remitted back to the Tribunal. Accordingly, this perdition is allowed, the award of the Tribunal (Annexure P-6) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to it to proceed further in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.