SUNIL KUMAR GHOSE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT
LAWS(ORI)-1978-7-3
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on July 28,1978

SUNIL KUMAR GHOSE Appellant
VERSUS
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) PETITIONER was employed as the Office Secretary of the Cuttack Chamber of Commerce. He filed an application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') claiming certain service benefits. The Management filed an objection contending that the petitioner was not a workman within the definition of section 2 (s) of the Act in as much as he was employed mainly in a managerial capacity. Evidence was led on both sides and the Labour Court upheld the objection of the Management and negative the claim of the petitioner. This application for a writ of certiorari is directed against the order of the Labour court rejecting the claim under section 33-C (2) of the act.
(2.) IN this Court the Management has also filed a counter affidavit supporting the order of the Labour Court.
(3.) IT is not disputed by Mr. Patnaik for the petitioner that if the petitioner could not be a workman, the application under section 33-C (2) of the Act could not be maintainable. The definition of workman in section 2 (s), as far as relevant, runs thus "workman' means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any technical or clerical work for hire on reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute ; or whose dismissal, discharge, or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person- (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity ; or (iv ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " The defence taken by the Management was that the petitioner was engaged in a managerial capacity.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.