- (1.) Rajendra Singh, the petitioner, was an employee of Scooters India Limited. He was appointed as Assistant Supervisor on a consolidated salary of Rs. 600/- per month which was inclusive of all allowances. The terms and conditions, under which he was appointed were stated in the letter of appointment dated 7th Mar. 1975, a copy of which is Annexure C-l to the counter-affidavit. He was placed on probation for a period of six months with effect from the date of joining his duties. That letter also enumerated the duties of his post. Para 15 of that letter is relevant for our enquiry which is extracted herein below : "The duties of your post shall also include the following : (a) Fully responsible for proper upkeep and cleanliness of machinery, tools, equipments and working place under your charge. (b) Setting of job on different machines under your charge. (c) Working with your own hands on the machine/machines attached to you. (d) Ensuring regular flow/availability of components and tools etc. for completing the production norms laid down by the Management for your machine/machines under your charge and maintain the laid down quality standards. (e) Any other job assigned to you by your superiors. The services of the petitioner were, however, terminated after some time on 4th Nov., 1978. The petitioner raised a dispute and ultimately the State Government in the Labour Department by the order No. 1076 dated 20th Mar., 1979 referred the dispute for adjudication. The matter of dispute referred was in these terms :- "KYA SEWAYOJAKON DWARA APNE SHRAMIK RAJENDRA SINGH (PUTRA SWA. SRI SARDAR BALWANT SINGH KO DINANK 4-11-78 SE KARYA SE PHATHAK/VANCHIT KIYA JANA UCHIT TATHA/ATHVA VAIDHA NIK HAT? YADI NAHIN TO SANHANDHIT SHRAMIK KYA LABH/CHHA TIPOORTI PANEY KA ADHIKARI HAIN TATHA ANYA KIS VIVHAN SAHIT?" Before the Labour Court objections were filed on behalf of the Scooters India Ltd., the employers. A rejoinder statement was also filed by the present petitioner. Documentary and oral evidence was also adduced in support of the respective contentions. It was urged before the Labour Court that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of that term given in the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. Hence the reference was bad in law and invalid. This contention was raised primarily on the basis that Rajendra Singh was drawing a salary of more than Rs. 500/- and was said to have been performing the duties essentially of supervisory nature. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue on the point in the following terms: "Whether Rajendra Singh is not a workmen within the meaning of U. P. I. D. Act? If so, its effect?" The Labour Court answered this issue against the petitioner holding that the petitioner was working in supervisory capacity and got wages of more than Rs. 500/- per month, hence he was not a workman within the meaning of U. P. I. D. Act. In view of this finding the Labour Court further held that the dispute was not an Industrial dispute, hence the reference was bad in law and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. It also observed that it was not possible for the court to enter into the merits of the dispute and the case must be consigned to records as infructuous, the matter of dispute being outside the purview of the court. Feeling aggrieved, Rajendra Singh has filed the instant writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of the said order of the Labour Court and for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Labour Court to rehear the matter of dispute and decide it in accordance with law and to treat the petitioner as being in employment with full wages.
(2.) The petition has been opposed by the employer Scooters India Ltd. And a counter- affidavit has been filed on its behalf by Sri C. D. Sugdan, Assistant Personnel Officer in Scooters India Ltd. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner controverting the averments made in the counter-affidavit and reiterating the averments made in the petition. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length.
(3.) For the petitioner it was submitted that the Labour Court had erred in holding that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of the U. P. I. D. Act and it, therefore, further erred in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction and in not deciding the dispute referred to it by the State Government. The argument was that even though the petitioner was being paid salary of more than Rs. 500/- per month, he was a workman as he was not doing any supervisory work as contemplated by the definition of "workman". The submission was that the petitioner has deposed before the Labour Court in clear terms that he was setting up the job himself on the machine and thereafter the workmen would operate the machines which were working automatically. He had to work on the machine himself and keep a record of the production being done in line No. 4 but he had no controlling power over the workmen nor had he any disciplinary authority over those workmen. Hence he was not working in any supervisory capacity. The learned counsel for the Scooters India Ltd., on the other hand, laid emphasis on the duties mentioned in the appointment letter and also on the fact that the petitioner from the documentary evidence could not show that he had actually worked upon any machine and had actually produced any thing whereas other workmen, who were working under him, were producing some articles which the petitioner himself was noting down in the register. It was also said that the petitioner was making his own recommendation on leave applications of the workmen working under him and was in fact working throughout as supervisor. Hence he was not a workman. We were taken through the evidence adduced before the Labour Court which has been filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition and have given our careful consideration to all the facts and circumstances of the case.;