Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) The present writ petition arises out of pending proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, Agra in Adjudication Case No. 29 of 2008, at the instance of the employer. Shri Shiv Kumar, respondent No. 4 herein claiming himself to be Supervisor of the petitioner Industry raised an industrial dispute which has been referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Agra and is pending adjudication.
(2.) The petitioners claimed that the reference made by the State Government under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Agra is not maintainable as the respondent No.4 Shiv Kumar is not a workman within the meaning of "workman" as contained under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act. A written statement has been filed by the petitioners through affidavit dated 30.9.2008 raising therein number of pleas. An application being Paper No. 18-D dated 9.12.2009 was filed before the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that the reference under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act is bad in law and not maintainable as the petitioner No.1 is a Small Scale Industry of seasonal character and it functions intermittently with the help of temporary furnace. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 20.1.2010 ordered that the said application shall be considered at the time of final adjudication of the case as the pleas sought to be raised therein are the basis of the defence on behalf of the petitioners-employer. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Shri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the facts as disclosed in the written statement by the contesting respondent No. 4 Shiv Kumar that he is a Supervisor, the reference of dispute to Industrial Tribunal is bad as the respondent No. 4 is not a workman within the meaning of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act. Reference was made by him on certain provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act as also Central Industrial Dispute Act. Reference was made to a case of Somnath Tulshiram Galande v. Presiding Officer, IInd Labour Court, Pune and others, 2008(117) FLR 1491 wherein it has been held that the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) is very wide in its terms and specifically excludes the person who works in a supervisor capacity, draws wages exceeding Rs.1600/- per month and exercises either the nature of duties attached to the Officer or by reason of the power vested in him, functions mainly in a managerial capacity.;