I.V.M.S. Ranganayakulu v. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam & Anr.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 26360 of 1995 ORDER:- In this writ petition the Award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court (for short “the Tribunal”), Visakhapatnam – 1st respondent herein made in I.D.No.271 of 1993, dated 21.03.1995, is questioned. The 2nd respondent was engaged by the petitioner as Supervisor in connection with a construction work for a fixed salary of Rs.350/- per month. It is an admitted fact that his services were discontinued with effect from 30.06.1992. The 2nd respondent raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Officer before whom the petitioner admitted his liability for payment of five months salary to the 2nd respondent, which worked out to Rs.1750/-. Not satisfied with that, the 2nd respondent raised a dispute before the 1st respondent - Tribunal, which after examining the evidence, held that the 2nd respondent was entitled to reinstatement into service. However, the 2nd respondent, in lieu of reinstatement, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation on all counts available for un-lawful termination apart from Rs.1750/- which the petitioner admitted that it is liable to pay the said amount to the 2nd respondent. Thus, in all, the 1st respondent – Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs.7100/-. Smt. Bhaskar Laxmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner raised a contention before the 1st respondent that the 2nd respondent is not a workmen and that the 1st respondent has not considered the said plea. The word “workman” is defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) and the same is extracted below. “Workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with or, as a consequence of, that disopute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person- (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him functions, mainly of a managerial nature.” It is clear from the said definition that even if a person is appointed in a supervisory capacity, so long as his monetary wages do not exceed Rs.1600/- per month or exercises either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reasons of the powers vested in him functions mainly of a managerial nature, falls within the definition of the ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Act. Except vaguely claiming that the 2nd respondent is not a workman, the petitioner failed to substantiate the said plea. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the award of the 1st respondent – Tribunal. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances no costs. Date: 29.09.2006 ES ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J