Associat ion anot her v. Reserve Bank of I ndia anot her, report ed in AI R

1. Mr. M.C. Pant , learned counsel for t he pet it ioner. t o t he raised indust rial 2. Pet it ioner disput e against t erm inat ion of his services by respondent , w.e.f. 27.12.2019. The said disput e was referred for adj udicat ion learned and was Labour Court , Dehradun regist ered as Adj udicat ion Case No.01 of 2021. Learned Labour Court has held is not a workm an, t hat pet it ioner t herefore, no relief can be grant ed t o him in proceedings under U.P. I ndust rial Disput es Act . Thus, feeling aggrieved, pet it ioner has approached t his Court , challenging t he award dat ed 21.10.2024. I t is not in disput e t hat pet it ioner 3. was appoint ed as Traffic Manager Garhwal Mot or Owner’s Union Lt d. on probat ion for a period of six m ont hs’, The vide order dat ed 01.05.2014. probat ion t hereaft er, period ext ended t im e- t o- t im e and vide order dat ed 27.12.2019, his services t he ground of unsat isfact ory service. t erm inat ed on was, I t is cont ended on behalf of 4. pet it ioner t hat pet it ioner was not given any not ice or opport unit y of hearing before t erm inat ing his services; in t he order of appoint m ent issued t o pet it ioner on 01.05.2014, it was m ent ioned t hat t he service condit ions of pet it ioner shall be as per t he service rules and st anding t he com pany, orders applicable t herefore, it is indicat ive of t he fact t hat pet it ioner was a workm an and not a Manager, t herefore, t he finding ret urned by learned Labour Court t hat pet it ioner is not a workm an, is unsust ainable. Court Learned required Labour 5. considered t he dut ies and funct ions of pet it ioner as Traffic Manager and also t he advert isem ent , which was produced by pet it ioner as Paper No. 17, shows t hat for appoint m ent as Traffic Manager, a candidat e was t o possess Bachelors Degree, besides Law Degree and Diplom a in Labour Law in addit ion t o knowledge of Com put ers and experience in adm inist rat ive work. Pet it ioner him self is a Law Graduat e. I t has com e on record t hat , as Traffic Manager, pet it ioner was responsible operat ion of buses and arrangem ent of t raffic. Based on t he dut ies/ funct ions and qualificat ions needed t he post of Traffic Manager, learned Labour Court cam e t o t he conclusion t hat pet it ioner was appoint ed in m anagerial capacit y and not as a workm an. Since pet it ioner failed t o prove t hat he was discharging dut ies of a workm an, t herefore, learned t hat Labour Court ret urned a pet it ioner’s st at us is not of a workm an. for m anagem ent finding Law is well set t led

6. t hat m ere designat ion of t he post is not decisive of t he nat ure of em ploym ent . The quest ion whet her a person in a in a clerical/ supervisory capacit y or m anual work depends whet her t he m ain and principal dut ies carried out by him are t hose of a supervisory charact er or of a nat ure carried out by a clerk or a skilled workm an. I n t he case of All I ndia is em ployed Reserve Bank Em ployees’ Associat ion & anot her Vs. Reserve Bank of I ndia & anot her, report ed in AI R 1966 SC 305, Hon’ble Suprem e Court held as follows: in which he is a supervisor wit hin or w it hout “ I n Ford Mot or Com pany of I ndia v. Ford Mot ors St aff Union, t he Labour Appellat e Tribunal correct ly point ed out t hat t he quest ion whet her a part icular workm an t he definit ion of “ workm an” is “ ult im at ely a quest ion of fact , at best one of m ixed fact and law….” and “ w ill really depend upon t he nat ure of t he indust ry, t he t ype of work t he is engaged, organisat ional set up of t he part icular unit of indust r y and fact or” . The Labour Appellat e Tribunal pert inent ly gave t he exam ple t hat “ t he nat ure of t he work in t he banking indust ry is in m any respect s obviously different from t he nat ure and t ype of work in a workshop depart m ent of an engineering or aut om obile concern” . We agree t hat we cannot use analogies t o find out whet her Class I I workers here were supervisors or doing m ere cler ical work. No doubt , as Mr. Char i st at ed, t he work in a bank involves layer upon layer of checkers and checking is hardly supervision but where t here is a power of assigning dut ies and dist r ibut ion of work t here is supervision.” t he finding

7. Since ret urned by learned Labour Court on t he st at us of pet it ioner is a finding of fact , t herefore, t here is lit t le scope for int erference wit h finding, while exercising power under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion.

8. Accordingly, t he writ pet it ion fails and is dism issed. Aswal ( M a n o r K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.)

18.02.2025