AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Both the courts have concurrently held that the Appellant was earlier employed as Fitter, however, at the time when the dispute arose, he was working as Assistant Foreman and Assistant Foremant is in the supervisory capacity. Such is the case admitted by the Appellant in his first show cause where he said that his duties are of the supervisory nature. The learned Counsel has relied on a case decided by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seeds Growers Union Ltd. v. Shailesh kumar Harshadbhai Shah reported in 2006 SCC L&S 1486.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the charge of theft which was levelled against the Appellant has been found proved by the Labour court and an employee with the credential of theft being alleged against him and found proved, cannot be considered an honest person to be kept in employment.
We have given our thoughtful consideration and have read the evidence of the workman where in the entire evidence there is not even a whisper that the Appellant worked as labourer at the relevant time. He admits that he was appointed as a Fitter, however, he was promoted as Assistant Foreman. The designation ''Foreman'' by its nature means an officer of the category of supervisor. His salary being more than Rs. 1600/-, he comes within the exception of definition of workman as delineated in the Industrial Disputes Act.
Having considered the above, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge and the Labour court have committed no illegality in answering the reference against the Appellant.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.