AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sam Koshy, J
The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Estate), District Raigarh, vide the impugned order dated 14.11.2017
has refused to entertain the conciliation proceedings only on the ground that the petitioner herein, who was the applicant before the Labour
Commissioner, was designated as Personnel Officer.
It is settled position of law that the Assistant Labour Commissioner or the Conciliation Officer for that matter is not empowered to decide the status
of the workman while entertaining the conciliation proceedings. Refusal of entertaining a conciliation proceedings on the ground that the petitioner was
a Personnel Officer by itself would amount to adjudicating the dispute holding the petitioner not to be a workman under the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
The fact, whether the petitioner would be a workman or not is a matter to be adjudicated upon only by the Labour Court after the evidences are
recorded.
Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Estate), Raigarh,
is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The matter is remitted back and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, who in turn, is hereby directed to
consider the case of the petitioner on merits and thereafter to pass appropriate order.
The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed of.