WP/25484/2005 of Grindwell Norton Ltd., Vs The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer on 27 December 2005

1. 2001 LLR 10832. 1983 II LLJ 425

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.25484 of 2005

Date: 27.12.2005

Between:Grindwell Norton Limited.. PETITIONER

AND

The Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer and another.

.. RESPONDENTS

ORDER:The petitioner challenges the order, dated 20.09.2005, passed by the IndustrialTribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, in I.A.No.154 of 2005 in I.D.No.135 of2003.

The 2[nd] respondent was initially appointed as a general Workman in the year1979. He is said to have been promoted and designated as Chargehand in theyear 1990, and Senior Chargehand with effect from June 1995. The petitioner terminated the services of the 2[nd] respondent through order, dated 10.03.2003.Thereupon, the 2[nd] respondent approached the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’).

The petitioner filed I.A.No.154 of 2005 before the Labour Court, with a requestto frame an issue, as to the maintainability of the I.D. It was pleaded that the2[nd] respondent was discharging the Supervisory functions, and having regardto the nature of duties and amount of salary, which he was drawing at therelevant point of time, he cannot be treated as a Workman; and thereby, he wasnot entitled to raise an Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Act. Theapplication was resisted by the 2[nd] respondent. Through the impugned order,the Labour Court did not accede to the request of the petitioner.

Sri C.R.Sridharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2[nd]respondent cannot be treated as a workman, and in that view of the matter, itwas not competent for the Labour Court to have entertained the I.D. Placingreliance upon several Judgments of the Supreme Court, particularly the one inHusasan Mithu Mhasvadkar vs. Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board, hecontends that whenever there is a doubt about the status of a workman, in thecontext of definition under Section 2(s) of the Act, the Labour Court is underobligation to resolve that controversy as a preliminary issue, instead ofrequiring the Management to undergo the entire ordeal of full trial of the matter.

Sri M.V.Pratap Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the 2[nd] respondent,on the other hand, submits that the question as to whether the 2[nd] respondentis a workman, as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act, can be decided onlyafter extensive evidence is adduced with reference to the nature of duties etc.,and no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Labour Court. Hecontends that the attempt of the petitioner is only to protract the proceedings.He too placed reliance upon several Judgments rendered by this Court as wellas the Supreme Court.

In the Industrial Dispute raised by the 2[nd] respondent, the petitioner raised apreliminary objection as to its maintainability, on the ground that the 2[nd]respondent is not a workman. The petitioner insisted that the controversy beresolved, by framing a preliminary issue.

A perusal of the catena of decisions relied upon by both the parties, disclosesthat there does not exist any hard and fast rule either way. For example, theSupreme Court in D.P.Maheswari vs. Delhi Administration & Others,disapproved the practice of the High Courts in issuing directions to the LabourCourts to frame preliminary issues and decide them. In contrast, in HusasanMithu Mhasvadkar’s case (1 supra), the Supreme Court took the view thatwhenever a doubt is expressed either by the Court or by the Management, asto the status of a workman, in the context of the definition under Section 2(s) ofthe Act, the dispute must be resolved by framing a preliminary issue. Muchdepended upon the necessary facts, on the strength of which the correspondingobjection was put forward.

A perusal of the record, in the instant case, discloses that the 2[nd] respondentwas inducted into service as an ordinary workman. The nature of promotions orthe additional duties assigned to him at subsequent stages can be ascertained,only after the relevant evidence is adduced. In the ordinary course of things,the preliminary issues are those, which can be decided mostly by referring tothe relevant provisions of law, without the necessity to lead or examine theevidence. Having regard to the fact that the disputed questions of fact viz., thenature of duties and amount of salary paid to the 2[nd] respondent, can beresolved only after both the parties adduce evidence, this Court is of the viewthat the Labour Court can be required to dispose of the matter finally, but,addressing the issues separately.

For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that theLabour Court shall frame an independent issue as to whether the 2[nd]

respondent is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act andanswer it independently in the Award, through which the I.D. is disposed of.Further, it shall be open to both the parties to lead evidence and put forwardtheir respective contentions on this aspect. The I.D. shall be disposed of withina period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

Note:

L.R.Copy to be marked.

B/o

Jsu

_________

27.12.2005