Sanjay Bajpai vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. The learned counsel for the opposite party has filed a counter affidavit which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dileep Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for the opposite party.

3. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Lucknow in LCA No. 3/2025 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the claim filed by the opposite party under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and had directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1,62,600/- to the opposite party claimant along with interest at the rate of 6%.

4. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioner-employer has submitted that the petitioner had raised a specific plea that the claimant-opposite party is not a 'workman' as per the definition of the term contained in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as initially he was initially appointed on the post of Stenographer in Grade S-1 and thereafter he was promoted in the year 2008 to Grade S-II. The petitioner took voluntary retirement under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme and he was discharged from service on

18.06.2021. The service certificate of the employee mentions the date of joining as 07.01.2008, the designation at the time of joining was stenographer, pay at the time of joining to be Rs. 11,682/-. The petitioner 2 A227 No. 6797 of 2025 has left the service on 16.04.2021 and the designation at the time of leaving the service was Senior Steno (Supervisor Grade-II). At the time of leaving the service, the opposite party was serving in the pay scale of Rs. 10,750-300-16,750 and his total emoluments were Rs. 35,256.50.

5. Along with the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party, the same service certificate dated 18.06.2021 has been annexed and, therefore, the facts stated in this certificate are admitted to the opposite party also.

6. The term workman is defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:- (s) “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 dispute, 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 ten thousand 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.

7. A copy of the promotion rules of the Scooters India Limited has been filed with the counter affidavit. Under the heading ‘classification of posts’, the rules mention that the posts in the company will broadly be divided in the following categories:- 3 A227 No. 6797 of 2025 Workman Category E unskilled Category D semi-skilled Category C skilled Category B Highly skilled Category A Highly skilled Staff S-I - Junior Supervisor-II and equivalent S-II - Junior Supervisor-I and equivalent S-III - Assistant Supervisor and equivalent S-IV - Supervisor and equivalent Officer Grade I - Engineer/Officer/Superintendent Grade II - Sr. Engineer/ Sr. Officer/ Sr. Superintendent Grade III - Deputy Manager Grade IV - Manager Grade V - Sr. Manager.

8. As per the aforesaid rules filed by the opposite party along with the counter affidavit, category S-1, in which the petitioner was initially appointed, includes Jr. Supervisors whereas category S-2 in which the petitioner was serving at the time of his voluntary retirement, is of Jr. Supervisor Grade-I. Initial pay of the petitioner was Rs. 11,682/- and at the time of leaving the service, his salary was Rs. 35,256.50 per month, both of which far exceed the amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month, which is the maximum salary payable to a person serving in a supervisory category to bring him in the category of workmen. Therefore, the petitioner does not fall within the definition of a workman as per Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4 A227 No. 6797 of 2025

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, the only questions that can be decided are as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which benefits should be computed. If the question involved is whether the claimant is a workman or not, this question cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and this question can only be decided upon a reference. In the present case, as the status of the opposite party as a workman was disputed, this question could not have been decided in proceedings under Section 33-C (2) and, in fact, the application under Section 33-C (2) has been allowed without deciding this question.

10. The learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that for deciding whether the employee was performing supervisory duties or not, the nature of duties being performed by the employees have to be taken into consideration. He has submitted that the petitioner was performing the duties of a stenographer and he was not supervising the work of any other employee. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated to be serving in a supervisory capacity.

11. The record reveals that appointment order of the petitioner as also his service certificate issued at the time of leaving service mentioned that he was appointed on a supervisory post and at the time of leaving the service also he was working in a supervisory post. This mention made in the appointment order was never challenged by the petitioner and he joined the service treating himself to have been appointed on a supervisory post. After completing the entire duration of service, the petitioner took voluntary retirement while working on supervisory post.

12. In these circumstances, after having served in a supervisory capacity since joining and till leaving the service, the averments made in his appointment order and the service leaving certificate to the effect that he was working in supervisory category, cannot be challenged by the petitioner and this Court cannot enter into this scrutiny at this stage after the petitioner has rendered the entire service on posts falling within supervisory category.

13. Although the order of the Tribunal is a detailed one, this aspect of the matter has not been dealt with by the Tribunal which vitiates the order of the Tribunal. 5 A227 No. 6797 of 2025

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the opposite party was not a workman of the petitioner and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act were not maintainable at his instance. Consequently, the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the opposite party when he is not a workman within the definition of Industrial Disputes Act.

15. The impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow having been passed without jurisdiction, is unsustainable in law.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petiton is allowed. The order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Lucknow in LCA No. 3/2025 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the claim filed by the opposite party under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and had directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1,62,600/- to the opposite party claimant along with interest at the rate of 6%, is set aside and the claim of the opposite party under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is dismissed. December 4, 2025 Pradeep/- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. The learned counsel for the opposite party has filed a counter affidavit which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dileep Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for the opposite party.

3. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Lucknow in LCA No. 3/2025 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the claim filed by the opposite party under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and had directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1,62,600/- to the opposite party claimant along with interest at the rate of 6%.

4. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioner-employer has submitted that the petitioner had raised a specific plea that the claimant-opposite party is not a 'workman' as per the definition of the term contained in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as initially he was initially appointed on the post of Stenographer in Grade S-1 and thereafter he was promoted in the year 2008 to Grade S-II. The petitioner took voluntary retirement under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme and he was discharged from service on

18.06.2021. The service certificate of the employee mentions the date of joining as 07.01.2008, the designation at the time of joining was stenographer, pay at the time of joining to be Rs. 11,682/-. The petitioner 2 A227 No. 6797 of 2025 has left the service on 16.04.2021 and the designation at the time of leaving the service was Senior Steno (Supervisor Grade-II). At the time of leaving the service, the opposite party was serving in the pay scale of Rs. 10,750-300-16,750 and his total emoluments were Rs. 35,256.50.

5. Along with the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party, the same service certificate dated 18.06.2021 has been annexed and, therefore, the facts stated in this certificate are admitted to the opposite party also.

6. The term workman is defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as follows:- (s) “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 dispute, 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 ten thousand 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.

7. A copy of the promotion rules of the Scooters India Limited has been filed with the counter affidavit. Under the heading ‘classification of posts’, the rules mention that the posts in the company will broadly be divided in the following categories:- 3 A227 No. 6797 of 2025 Workman Category E unskilled Category D semi-skilled Category C skilled Category B Highly skilled Category A Highly skilled Staff S-I - Junior Supervisor-II and equivalent S-II - Junior Supervisor-I and equivalent S-III - Assistant Supervisor and equivalent S-IV - Supervisor and equivalent Officer Grade I - Engineer/Officer/Superintendent Grade II - Sr. Engineer/ Sr. Officer/ Sr. Superintendent Grade III - Deputy Manager Grade IV - Manager Grade V - Sr. Manager.

8. As per the aforesaid rules filed by the opposite party along with the counter affidavit, category S-1, in which the petitioner was initially appointed, includes Jr. Supervisors whereas category S-2 in which the petitioner was serving at the time of his voluntary retirement, is of Jr. Supervisor Grade-I. Initial pay of the petitioner was Rs. 11,682/- and at the time of leaving the service, his salary was Rs. 35,256.50 per month, both of which far exceed the amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month, which is the maximum salary payable to a person serving in a supervisory category to bring him in the category of workmen. Therefore, the petitioner does not fall within the definition of a workman as per Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4 A227 No. 6797 of 2025

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that under Section 33-C (2) of the Act, the only questions that can be decided are as to the amount of money due or as to the amount at which benefits should be computed. If the question involved is whether the claimant is a workman or not, this question cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and this question can only be decided upon a reference. In the present case, as the status of the opposite party as a workman was disputed, this question could not have been decided in proceedings under Section 33-C (2) and, in fact, the application under Section 33-C (2) has been allowed without deciding this question.

10. The learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that for deciding whether the employee was performing supervisory duties or not, the nature of duties being performed by the employees have to be taken into consideration. He has submitted that the petitioner was performing the duties of a stenographer and he was not supervising the work of any other employee. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated to be serving in a supervisory capacity.

11. The record reveals that appointment order of the petitioner as also his service certificate issued at the time of leaving service mentioned that he was appointed on a supervisory post and at the time of leaving the service also he was working in a supervisory post. This mention made in the appointment order was never challenged by the petitioner and he joined the service treating himself to have been appointed on a supervisory post. After completing the entire duration of service, the petitioner took voluntary retirement while working on supervisory post.

12. In these circumstances, after having served in a supervisory capacity since joining and till leaving the service, the averments made in his appointment order and the service leaving certificate to the effect that he was working in supervisory category, cannot be challenged by the petitioner and this Court cannot enter into this scrutiny at this stage after the petitioner has rendered the entire service on posts falling within supervisory category.

13. Although the order of the Tribunal is a detailed one, this aspect of the matter has not been dealt with by the Tribunal which vitiates the order of the Tribunal. 5 A227 No. 6797 of 2025

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the opposite party was not a workman of the petitioner and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act were not maintainable at his instance. Consequently, the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the opposite party when he is not a workman within the definition of Industrial Disputes Act.

15. The impugned order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow having been passed without jurisdiction, is unsustainable in law.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petiton is allowed. The order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Lucknow in LCA No. 3/2025 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the claim filed by the opposite party under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and had directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1,62,600/- to the opposite party claimant along with interest at the rate of 6%, is set aside and the claim of the opposite party under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is dismissed. December 4, 2025 Pradeep/- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench