- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement with backwages.
(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the workman was appointed as a Trainee Operator in the year 1991 and eventually was working on the post of Assistant Chemist at the relevant moment of time. On 26.3.2001 a notice was served upon the workman giving him two months notice after which his services would be dispensed with. In the said notice it was indicated that there was a heavy slump in the industry and consequently, his services was no longer required. The workman was accordingly terminated on 25.5.2001. The workman being aggrieved, raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court.
(3.) Before the Labour Court, the employers took a stand that the workman was not a 'workman' as defined under Section 2(z) of the U.P.Industrial Disputes Act, inasmuch as, his duties was supervisory and technical in nature, and that, he supervised the work of the workers working under him. It was also alleged that since the workman was getting more than Rs.500/- per month, he was not a workman. On the otherhand, the workman in his written statement contended that the duties were not supervisory and that he was not entitled to grant leave or take action against any worker and that he himself was subordinate and answerable to the Deputy Production Manager.;