SHARAD KUMAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-86
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
April 11,2002
SHARAD KUMAR
Appellant
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
NIRMAL SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [REFERRED]S.L. SONI V. RAJASTHAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.JAIPUR [REFERRED]
MANAGEMENT OF MAY AND BAKER INDIA LIMITED AND RESPONDENT VS. THEIR WORKMEN AND APPELLANTS [REFERRED]
BOMBAY UNION OF JOURNALISTS VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED]
BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. BURMA SHELL MANAGEMENT STAFF ASSOCIATION [REFERRED]
M P IRRIGATION KARAMCHARI SANGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED]
TELCO CONVOY DRIVERS MAZDOOR SANGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
S K MAINI VS. CARONA SAHU COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED]
H R ADYANTHAYA OTHERS VS. SANDOZ INDIA LTD [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
SURESH KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2003-5-118] [REFERRED]HOTEL WORKERS UNION VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2003-7-40] [REFERRED]
KHUSHI RAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2005-1-75] [REFERRED TO]
PREM KUMAR VS. SECRETARY LABOUR GOI [LAWS(DLH)-2005-2-147] [REFERRED TO]
PREM CHAND VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2007-7-139] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH TALKIES VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-7-223] [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM MISHRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-12-169] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRE MEDICAL AND SALES VS. VICE PRESIDENT MARKETING FAIR DEAL CORPORATION PVT LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2009-2-38] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHID AHMAD KHAN VS. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AGRA REGION AGRA [LAWS(ALL)-2009-2-69] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KURNOOL VS. K VEERANNA [LAWS(APH)-2003-11-66] [REFERRED TO]
A P PAPER MILLS LIMITED VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2009-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF BARODA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2005-1-45] [REFERRED TO]
POWER CELL BATTERY KARMIKARA VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(KAR)-2008-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
RAMEN CHANDRA GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2012-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LTD VS. HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LTD [LAWS(SC)-2005-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUST LTD VS. JASWANT SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2010-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
A P FOODS VS. S SAMUEL [LAWS(SC)-2006-7-126] [REFERRED TO]
DIVYASH PANDIT VS. MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CEMENT AND BUILDING MATERIALS [LAWS(DLH)-2012-3-217] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES VS. SANJAY KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2011-1-94] [REFERRED TO]
BATA INDIA LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-199] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT VS. GUJARAT MAZDOOR SABHA [LAWS(GJH)-2006-1-45] [REFERRED TO]
THAKOR NAGJIBHAI BHAILAL VS. IPCL NOW AMALGAMATED WITH RELIEANCE IND LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2010-8-317] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LUCKNOW VS. P N KHANNA [LAWS(ALL)-2002-11-86] [REFERRED TO. (4)]
ANGLO FRENCH DRUG CO LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-70] [REFERRED TO]
HUKUM SINGH ALIAS HUKUM CHAND VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [LAWS(ALL)-2005-11-130] [REFERRED TO]
NADIA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. NADIA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(CAL)-2011-9-119] [REFERRED TO]
Management of Arkonam Co operative House Mortgage Society VS. T J Rangappan [LAWS(MAD)-2003-8-46] [REFERRED TO]
Management of Sundaram Abex LTD VS. Presiding Officer [LAWS(MAD)-2004-2-158] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. GENERAL MANAGER [LAWS(MAD)-2004-4-138] [REFERRED TO]
KARUR VYSYA BANK LIMITED VS. KARUR VYSYA BANK EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(MAD)-2007-3-238] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA MATHUR VS. IDEA CELLULAR LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2011-8-434] [REFERRED TO]
AKHIL BHARTIYA ADHINAST BANK KARMACHARI SANGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2011-1-51] [REFERRED TO]
C K RAVINDARAN VS. NEW HORIZON SUGAR MILLS LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2007-3-213] [REFERRED TO]
KOPARGAON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(BOM)-2007-3-61] [REFERRED TO]
CEDRIC D SILVA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-11-49] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED LABOUR FEDERATION REGN NO 2657/CNI VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-10-157] [REFERRED TO]
AMOL SANJAY SARWADE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
S RAMESH VS. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-263] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV GANDHI ONGC CON WORKERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-89] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR ALIAS BILLU VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [LAWS(UTN)-2005-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN NATIONAL GLASS AND INDUSTRIES LTD VS. DY LABOUR COMMISSIONER [LAWS(UTN)-2010-7-77] [REFERRED TO]
PARBHU RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2006-5-259] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2006-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
Ramesh VS. Assistant Labour Commissioner and another [LAWS(UTN)-2003-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAMEN CHANDRA GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2012-8-142] [REFERRED TO]
A.KRISHNA VENI VS. CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P.LTD [LAWS(APH)-2013-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
SPICE COMUNICATIONS LTD VS. REETHA BHEEMAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-2006-12-71] [REFERRED TO]
MALINDO MARANDI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(JHAR)-2003-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR COLLIERY KAMGAR UNION VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH UNDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR [LAWS(JHAR)-2004-7-54] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH WALIA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-1-47] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR RANA VS. INDUST. FINANCE CORP. OF (I) LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2005-12-160] [REFERRED TO]
WIPRO INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING VS. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR [LAWS(KAR)-2014-10-128] [REFERRED TO]
ZYDUS ALIDAC FORTIZA VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2015-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
SUKESHINI KALOHE VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2015-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-3-124] [REFERRED TO]
HITENDRA VRAJLAL TIRVEDI VS. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISIONER [LAWS(GJH)-2004-8-84] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN SOMABHAI PARMAR VS. THE DESK OFFICER, GOVT. OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2004-8-85] [REFERRED TO]
CHIMANLAL KHUSHALDAS CHANDISA VS. PREMIER TYRES LTD AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2012-7-619] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED REPRESENTED BY THE VICE PRESIDENT VS. SELVINTH GNANESH JOSHUA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-656] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN FARMERS FERTILISER COOPERATIVE LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-10-282] [REFERRED]
MANAGEMENT OF SCHNEIDER ELECTRICIT BUSINESS INDIA PVT LTD VS. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY; GENERAL SECRETARY [LAWS(KAR)-2016-2-428] [REFERRED]
BIRLA CORPORATION LTD AUTO TRIM DIVISION EMPLOYEES UNION VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2009-9-184] [REFERRED]
DIVYASH PANDIT VS. THE MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CEMENT AND BUILDING MATERIALS [LAWS(DLH)-2012-3-777] [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF TRUSTEES VS. SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2017-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
HEMANT KUMAR JOSHI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOU [LAWS(UTN)-2018-4-71] [REFERRED TO]
MAHTU AND 4 ORS VS. STATE OF U P THRU PRIN SECY LABOUR GOVT OF U P LKO & ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-122] [REFERRED TO]
HT MEDIA LIMITED VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-8-147] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD VS. GENERAL SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-210] [REFERRED TO]
NITYA NAND SINHA VS. HL PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2019-12-59] [REFERRED TO]
SAPNA VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2021-7-210] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal filed by the employee is directed against the order dated 10-7-2000 of the Delhi High Court declining to interfere with the order of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT of Delhi) refusing to refer the dispute raised by the appellant to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court on the sole ground that he is not a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(3.)The factual backdrop of the case relevant for appreciating the question raised in the case may be stated thus :
The appellant was holding the post of 'Area Sales Executive' when his service was terminated vide the order dated 20-12-1995. The order was communicated to him on 28-12-1995. No show cause notice was served nor any enquiry was held before the order terminating appellant's service was passed. However, one month's salary was sent to him along with the termination letter. The appellant questioned the legality and validity of the order of termination of service. The matter was taken up for conciliation. The Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the State Government on 23-10-1996. On receipt of the Conciliation Officer's report the State Government declined to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court for adjudication vide order dated 14-7-1998. The relevant portion of the order reads :
"All the documents filed and submissions of the parties and the report of the Conciliation Officer have been perused and it is found that this is not a fit case for reference to Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court of Delhi for adjudication for the reasons given below :
"Admittedly the applicant was designated as Area Sales Executive and performing the duties of Area Sales Executive, as such he is not covered by the definition of "Workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."
(2.)This appeal filed by the employee is directed against the order dated 10-7-2000 of the Delhi High Court declining to interfere with the order of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT of Delhi) refusing to refer the dispute raised by the appellant to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court on the sole ground that he is not a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(3.)The factual backdrop of the case relevant for appreciating the question raised in the case may be stated thus :
The appellant was holding the post of 'Area Sales Executive' when his service was terminated vide the order dated 20-12-1995. The order was communicated to him on 28-12-1995. No show cause notice was served nor any enquiry was held before the order terminating appellant's service was passed. However, one month's salary was sent to him along with the termination letter. The appellant questioned the legality and validity of the order of termination of service. The matter was taken up for conciliation. The Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the State Government on 23-10-1996. On receipt of the Conciliation Officer's report the State Government declined to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court for adjudication vide order dated 14-7-1998. The relevant portion of the order reads :
"All the documents filed and submissions of the parties and the report of the Conciliation Officer have been perused and it is found that this is not a fit case for reference to Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court of Delhi for adjudication for the reasons given below :
"Admittedly the applicant was designated as Area Sales Executive and performing the duties of Area Sales Executive, as such he is not covered by the definition of "Workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.