V K RAJAMMA Vs. LABOUR COURT KOLLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.