Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 104 (KER)

V. K. Rajamma v. The Labour Court, Kollam

2003-02-07

M.R.HARIHARAN NAIR

body2003
Judgment :- The petitioner was the paid Secretary of the 2nd respondent Co-operative Society. She was suspended on 8.9.1990 and after enquiry, was dismissed from service. The dismissal was challenged before the Labour Court, Kollam and in Ext.P1 award the Labour court found that the petitioner was not a workmen coming under the definition under Section 2(5) of ID Act in so far as she belonged to the managerial or supervisory cadre and accordingly refused to grant any relief. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that nomenclature of the designation is not conclusive and that even Secretaries of Co-operative Societies have been found to be entitled to the benefits of the ID Act vide decision in P.S.C. Bank Ltd. v. Balakrishnan 1981 KLT short note 57 and T.C.C. Co-OP. Society Ltd. v. Labour court, Ernakulam (1988 (2) KLT 781.) According to the petitioner the labour court went wrong in interpreting the provisions in the byelaws of the Society to conclude that the petitioner was working in managerial or supervisory capacity. According to him no opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence on the relevant aspects. 3. It is true that in the Original Petition the petitioner has taken a stand that she was not actually doing any managerial work and that she was treated as a clerk for all purposes. If the findings to the contrary were entered without affording an opportunity for adducing evidence in support of the petitioner’s contentions in the matter probably a remand of the case would have been justified. The relevant records were called for from the labour court here and a pursual of the same shows that this is not a case where the petitioner was not given an opportunity to adduce evidence. It is seen that the petitioner was examined as WW1 on 23.11.1995 and there was no attempt on her part to bring in any evidence to show that she was actually doing clerical work and was not discharging managerial functions. In view of this fact the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that there was deprivation of opportunity to adduce evidence on material points. 4. Once the above position is accepted what can be looked into for resolving the controversy are only the provisions in the Byelaws. The labour court has gone into the relevant provision and it is unnecessary to repeat the same in this judgment. 4. Once the above position is accepted what can be looked into for resolving the controversy are only the provisions in the Byelaws. The labour court has gone into the relevant provision and it is unnecessary to repeat the same in this judgment. It would be sufficient to state generally that clause 22 thereof provides that the Secretary’s responsibility could be the management of all affairs of the Society. Clause 25(b) provides that the Secretary shall be responsible for the executive administration of the Society. The aforesaid provision clearly shows that what is expected of the Secretary is not merely clerical responsibilities. I am aware that the President of the Society and the Director Board of the Society have power to supervise the work of the Secretary, but that does not at all alter the situation. Likewise the mention in clause 30 of the Byelaws that the Secretary should issue receipt for amounts or the provision in clause 46 that in addition to other activities the Secretary should issue receipts and manage the correspondence of the society also will not change the position as regards the responsibilities and functions of the Secretary. 5. The two decisions cited by the petitioner (see para 2 above) were cases of different facts. In the former among them (1981 KLT SN 57) (Case No.107) the employee was not the Secretary but the Manager who under the Byelaws had to work under the supervision of the Secretary. The work that he was doing was more clerical than managerial. In the latter case, during the relevant period the Secretary, after sickness, was directed to look after clerical functions alone and instead the senior clerk of the Society had been authorized to function as Secretary. Even the charge allege against the Secretary was that he did not comply with the allocation of work as above and refused to do the clerical work. That is not the position in the present case. Even the charge allege against the Secretary was that he did not comply with the allocation of work as above and refused to do the clerical work. That is not the position in the present case. In the circumstances, the labour court was right in concluding that the functions envisaged in the bye laws as that of the Secretary of the Society did not fall under those mentioned in Section 2 (S) of the ID Act according to which persons employed mainly in managerial and administrative capacity or who being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding 1600 Rupees per month or exercise either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of powers vested in him, functions mainly of managerial nature fall out of the definition of the term ‘workman’. As such the ID was not maintainable as rightly found by the labour court. There is no scope for interference in Ext.P1 award. The Original Petition is without merit, dismissed.