- (1.) The challenge is made to an industrial award published by the Industrial Tribunal answering the reference against the union that the 19 persons are not the workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
(2.) The short question which evolved in this writ petition is whether a person is a workman within the meaning assigned under the Industrial Disputes Act, despite the designation of a supervisor. Before proceeding to deal with the aforesaid issue, it would be profitable to adumbrate more or less admitted facts.
(3.) The company is engaged in an industrial work employing large number of workmen. A settlement was arrived between the association and the management formulating certain duties and responsibilities of the employees. Some of the employees were designated as a supervisors and the duties to be discharged were clearly indicated in the settlement. It is a case of the union that though they are designated as a supervisors but never performed duties in such capacity and in fact, the duties assigned to them was clerical in nature and, therefore, were treated as the workmen within the definition assigned under Industrial Disputes Act. The management subsequently terminated the services of the 19 workmen whose causes are being espoused by the union in this writ petition after issuing a show cause notices. The union raised an industrial dispute before the appropriate Government and an order of reference was passed on 23rd December, 2002. The reference was further modified by issuing a corrigendum dated. 21st January, 2004, by recasting the same in the following manner : 'whether the management is justified in terminating the services of workmen appearing at serial No. 1 to serial No. 16 and serial No. 17 in the annexure with effect from 3.4.2002 and those appearing in serial No. 17 and serial No. 19 in the said annexure with effect from 14.05.2002.';