1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2767 OF 2001
PETITIONER:
M/s Amravati Coal & Cke Depot, through its Partner Smt. Aruna wd/o Vinodrao
Vora, aged major, occ. Nil, r/o Anand Villa Building Ambapeth, Amravati
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
1] Uddavrao Marotrao Mankar, aged 40 years, resident of near Vijay Oil Mills, Vilas
Nagar, Amravati.
2] Member, Indusdtrial Tribunal, Maharashtra [Amravati Bench] Amravati.
==============================================================
Shri V.M. Deshpande, advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
==============================================================
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.
DATE : 3rd November , 2009
.
ORAL JUDGMENT
By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the
Member, Industrial Court on 6.12.2000 allowing the revision application filed by
the respondent / complainant.
2] The respondent is the original complainant. He filed a complaint before the
Labour Court, Amravati under section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:12 :::
2
Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act of 1971 seeking his
reinstatement in service and alleged unfair labour practice under Item 9 of
Schedule IV of the Act of 1971.
3] Since it was mentioned in the paragraph 1 of the complaint that from 1974
the respondent was working as a Manager, a preliminary objection was raised by
the petitioner to the tenability of the complaint on the ground that the
respondent was not a workman within the meaning of the term under the
provisions of section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was stated in the
preliminary objection that the respondent was discharging the duties of
supervisory and managerial nature and the complaint filed by respondent was
not tenable. The complainant denied that he was discharging the duties of a
Manager and was supervising and controlling the affairs of the firm. On perusing
the complaint and the say, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amravati
dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent by an order dated 28.10.1993. It
was observed in the order dated 28.10.1993 that the complainant was working
as Manager and hence the complaint was not tenable. The order passed by the
Labour Court on 28.10.1993 was challenged by the respondent in a revision
before the Industrial Court, Amravati. The Industrial Court, Amravati by the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:12 :::
3
impugned order dated 6.12.2000 set aside the order passed by the Labour Court
on 28.10.1993 and directed the Labour Court to decide the matter in the light of
the observations made in the impugned order.
4] Shri V. M. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the respondent had himself mentioned in paragraph 1 of the complaint that he
was working as Manager and since the respondent was discharging his duties as
Manager and had supervisory control over the affairs of the firm, he was not a
workman, within the meaning of the term under the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour
Court had rightly dismissed the complaint by an order dated 28.10.1993 and it
was not proper on the part of the Industrial Court to have allowed the revision
filed by the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted
that on a perusal of the objection and the say of the complainant, it is clear that
the complainant was working in the managerial capacity and was not a
workman.
5] None appears on behalf of the respondent/ complainant.
6] On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:12 :::
4
complaint, preliminary objection, the say of the complainant, as also the order
dated 28.10.1993 and impugned order dated 26.12.2000, it appears that the
order passed by the Industrial Court at Amravati on 6.12.2000 is just and proper.
The respondent had merely stated in paragraph 1 of the complaint that he was
working as a Manager. None of the paragraphs of the complaint speak about the
duties which were actually performed by the respondent. Though in the
preliminary objection it is stated by the petitioner that the respondent was
discharging the duties of Manager and used to supervise and control affairs of
the firm, this fact has been specifically denied by the respondent in the say filed
by the respondent. In such a background, in the absence of any evidence or in
the absence of the admitted position that the respondent was performing the
duties in the managerial and supervisory capacity, the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court had committed an error in dismissing the complaint by the order dated
28.10.1993. The Industrial Court rightly held that the designation of a person
would not be a decisive factor for deciding the question as to whether the person
falls within the definition of the term workman or not. The Industrial Court
rightly held that it is the nature of the work and the duties which is a decisive
factor. These aspects, according to the Industrial Court were not considered by
the Labour Court and the complaint was dismissed merely because the word
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:12 :::
5
“Manager” was used in paragraph 1 of the complaint. The Industrial Court
rightly held that the order of the Labour Court could not have been sustained as
it was not a reasoned order. The Industrial Court observed that this aspect of the
matter needs to be considered in detail and it is desirable that the court should
decide this issue only after permitting the parties to file their pleadings and
tender evidence on the same. The approach of the Industrial Court in considering
the revision is just and reasonable, so also is the impugned order as the Industrial
Court has clearly stated that it would be desirable that the parties should be
allowed to file the pleadings and the material documents before the Labour
Court for deciding the issue of jurisdiction. There is nothing wrong with the
order passed by the Industrial Court on 6.12.2000 as the complaint does not
disclose the nature of the duties performed by the respondent and it is not an
admitted position that the respondent was performing his duties in the
managerial capacity.
7] In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Rule
stands discharged
JUDGE
SMP
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:16:12 :::