- (1.) HEARD Mr.Vivek Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Vikash Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. In the instant case the sole question for determination is whether the petitioner is a "workman"?
(2.) BY means of order impugned dated 24th of August, 2007, passed by the Industrial Tribunal II, State of U.P., Lucknow, the petitioner's status as "workman", as claimed by the petitioner, has been denied. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Lucknow vide office order dated 24.6.2004 referred the dispute for its adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal as under:- "Whether the action of the employer to terminate the petitioner's services from the post of Fleet Executive is lawful and valid." Initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Operator/Technician Grade III for six months on probation basis w.e.f. 13th of March, 1995 against the salary of Rs.2600/- per month. Having been found his services satisfactory, he was confirmed w.e.f. 13th of September, 1995. Moreover, he was also awarded one increment w.e.f. 1st of February, 1996 for his good work. Earlier he was appointed in the Plant Jainpur (Kanpur Dehat), where from he was transferred to Sathariya Plant, district Jaunpur on 30th of August, 1996 on the revised pay scale i.e. Rs.5450/-. Pursuant to the subsequent transfer order, he was posted at Lucknow in the month of June, 1997 and till 2000 he was awarded annual increments each and every year @ Rs.490/-. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Line Supervisor in the pay scale of Rs.7716/- and thereafter on the post of Fleet Executive. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that being posted as Fleet Executive, the petitioner was supposed to discharge the mechanical work. That being so, he was called as skilled workman. It is also stated that no other staff was posted in his subordination. The petitioner also pointed out some conduct of the employer transferring the petitioner from one place to another and also compelling him to resign from the post or to be on long leave. He remained on leave w.e.f. 9th of October, 2003 to 17th of October, 2003. When he turned up, he was not permitted to join for want of instructions of the superior authorities. Then he wrote a letter on 8th of November, 2003 seeking guidance for further action. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the employer became unhappy with the said letter and terminated his services on 14th of November, 2003 by giving one month's salary in lieu of notice prior to termination. It is also stated that the petitioner was retrenched without providing any retrenchment allowance. Thus, the order of termination is claimed in violation of Section 6-N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
(3.) IN reply the respondents have submitted that the order of termination is in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, it is valid and lawful. Before the Tribunal the respondents raised objection on the petitioner's status submitting therein that the petitioner is not covered under the definition of "workman" as is defined under Section 2(z) of the Act, therefore, the reference itself is bad. In order to examine the petitioner's status, it is worth to look in to the nature of duties assigned to the petitioner as well as the provisions of the Act, which cover the employee under the definition of "workman".;