- (1.)THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Principal labour Court, Chennai dated August 19, 1996 in C. P. No. 816of 1994.
(2.)THE case of the petitioner is that the first respondent was appointed as a senior marketing executive on probation for 6 months on a basic pay of Rs. 1200 and was later promoted as area co-ordinator (Marketing) from April 7, 1991 and later as assistant manager-marketing from april 1, 1992 on a basic pay of Rs. 1650/ -. On september 20, 1993, the first respondent tendered his resignation stating as follows:
"as I got a better offer, I hereby submit my resignation from the post of assistant manager marketing. I am ready to serve the notice period of thirty days and kindly relieve me on October 19, 1993 and settle my dues at the earliest. "
However, the first respondent did not attend office after September 20, 1993. Therefore, on the next day i. e. , on September 21, 1993, the resignation of the first respondent was accepted and was relieved of his duty by letter dated September 21, 1993. Thereafter, in november 1994, the first respondent filed c. P. No. 816 of 1994 under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stating that he is a workman doing clerical work and that he has resigned and that his wages for August and September 1993 together with other benefits were not paid to him in spite of repeated personal requests to the petitioner. Therefore, in the claim petition, a sum of rs. 33,833 was claimed by the first respondent.
(3.)THE writ petitioner/management filed a counter statement denying the claim of the first respondent. It was contended that since the first respondent was working as an assistant marketing manager, he falls under the managerial category and therefore, he cannot be treated as a workman as contemplated under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Before the Labour Court, the writ petitioner has denied all the claims made in the claim petition, including the computation of wages, bonus, etc. No notice was served on the writ petitioner before the claim petition was filed. The monetary benefits claimed in the petition were disputed as being illegal, wrong and fabricated with an intention to make wrongful gain against the writ petitioner.