Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 688 (GUJ)

Batuk S. Chauhan v. Factory Manager

2009-10-29

JAYANT PATEL

body2009
Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—Leave to delete Respondent No. 2. 2. Rule. Mr. Devang Nanavati, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 waives notice of rule for Respondent No. 1. 3. The only aspect deserves to be considered in the present case is that whether the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the reference on the ground that the petitioner could not be said to be workman within the definition of the workman under I.D. Act or not. 4. The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner was appointed as the Junior Engineer in the respondent company in the year 1987 and thereafter his services were terminated on 02.06.1990. He raised the dispute under the I.D. Act, in which, ultimately, the Reference (L.C.G.) No. 438 of 1992 was made to the Labour Court. In the said reference the evidence was led by the petitioner. However, on behalf of the respondent, nobody stepped into the witness box nor any oral or documentary evidence was produced. The Labour Court, thereafter, on the basis of certain statement in the cross-examination of the petitioner, recorded the finding that the petitioner was in supervisory capacity and therefore could not be said as workman and hence the reference is rejected. It is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 5. Heard Mr. Shah for the petitioner and Mr. Nanavati for the respondent. 6. It appears form the reasons recorded by the Labour Court that the Labour Court has lost the sight of the important aspects that no evidence whatsoever was led on behalf of the respondent by production of the appointment order, the nature of duty to be discharged by the petitioner or any other evidence in this regard. Further had the respondent offered itself through its authorized officer the evidence to support its case that the petitioner was engaged in supervisory cum managerial cadre, the petitioner would have cross-examined the said aspects to explore the truth. But, it is an admitted fact that no evidence was led on behalf of the respondent before the Labour Court. It appears that the Labour Court has committed error apparent on the face of the record on the aforesaid aspects. 7. But, it is an admitted fact that no evidence was led on behalf of the respondent before the Labour Court. It appears that the Labour Court has committed error apparent on the face of the record on the aforesaid aspects. 7. Further the approach of the Labour Court to record the conclusion on a mere some part of the sentences in the cross-examination, in the deposition of the petitioner, that the petitioner was in supervisory cadre, appears to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Even if the deposition of the petitioner is considered as it is, it is not possible to record the conclusion that the work which was to be discharged by the petitioner was not in the manufacturing activity of the respondent company and was exclusively in managerial cadre of a supervisory in nature. Merely because the Jr. Engineer is assigned with the work to look after and verify the working of the production activity of the workmen and to report the same or merely because he has been assigned with the duty to allot the work to the workmen on the basis of the instructions of the Production Manager or any recommendations were recorded by him for leave report of certain workmen are not sufficient circumstances to record the conclusion that the petitioner was engaged in managerial supervisory capacity. The pertinent aspect required to be considered is the role of the petitioner in the manufacturing activity and whether there was technical involvement of the petitioner or not. The fact that the petitioner was engaged as Jr. Engineer (Machine Shop) and had to apply his technical knowledge in the production activity, may be by examining the work undertaken by the workmen, would show that he had to apply his technical knowledge and his involvement is directly in the manufacturing activity. 8. If the facts of the present case are examined further in light of the aforesaid, it is not possible to sustain the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner was engaged in the supervisory capacity. 9. Under these circumstances, impugned award passed by the Labour Court for rejection of the reference deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded to the Labour Court for re-consideration of the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties to the proceedings. 9. Under these circumstances, impugned award passed by the Labour Court for rejection of the reference deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded to the Labour Court for re-consideration of the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties to the proceedings. Hence, the award of the Labour Court in Reference (L.C.G.) No. 438 of 1992 is quashed and set aside with the direction that the reference shall stand restored to the Labour Court. The Labour Court shall decide the reference afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides, preferably within period of six months from the receipt of the order of this Court. 10. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to cost.