- (1.) BY way of this intra -Court appeal, the petitioner -appellant seeks to question the order dated 13.08.2012 as passed in CWP No. 6087/2012 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has declined to interfere in the award dated 06.03.2012 as passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur in Labour Dispute Case No. 47/2006. By the award aforesaid, the Labour Court, Jodhpur had answered the reference against the appellant after finding him to be not a workman under clause (s) of Sec. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act of 1947') and after further finding the term of the reference, as regards the date of alleged termination, to be incorrect. The reference made to the Labour Court had been as under: - - THE Labour Court, after examining the evidence on record, particularly the admission of the appellant about his salary being in the sum of Rs. 3,800/ - per month with an additional amount of Rs. 700/ - per month; and job being essentially that of a Supervisor, has found him not covered in the definition of "workman" in the following: The Labour Court further held that the date of alleged termination as 01.01.2003 in the terms of reference was incorrect, with reference to the admission of the appellant himself and for want of cogent evidence on the related facts in the following: - - Seeking to question the award aforesaid, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge that under various communications and certificates sent to the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('the Act of 1972') and the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('the Act of 1948'), the respondent -employer had shown him to be a person employed as a workman and thus, the finding of the Labour Court was not correct. The learned Single Judge has examined the definition of employee as occurring in clause (e) of Sec. 2 of the Act of 1972 and found the said definition distinct than the definition of workman under the Act of 1947 inasmuch as under the Act of 1972, even the person employed in managerial or administrative capacity was to be treated as an employee but it were not so under the Act of 1947. The learned Single Judge further observed that even under the Act of 1948, the concept of workman was different and in the term used, i.e., "employee", the person even working in managerial capacity was not excluded. The learned Single Judge endorsed the findings of the Labour Court and found no case for interference in the following: - - On the other hand, from perusal of the facts discussed in the award impugned, it is apparent that the petitioner himself accepted that he was working in managerial capacity as he was maintaining the attendance register of the workman and was looking after the work done by the labourers pertaining to production. The name of the petitioner was also registered in the register pertaining to the managerial staff. As such, I do not find any wrong with the finding arrived by the Labour Court under the award impugned that may warrant interference of this Court.
(2.) Seeking to question the award and order aforesaid, the learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the Learned Single Judge and the Labour Court have not examined all the relevant features and aspects of the case. It is submitted that the suggestion about the appellant being employed in any supervisory capacity came up from the respondents only when the matter was referred to the Labour Court and else, on the earlier occasions, the stand of the respondent -employer had been materially different. The learned counsel has particularly referred to the certificate of the employment (Ex. 5) and so also the list of employees (Annex. 26), as sent by the employer, to submit that therein, the appellant was never suggested to be a person employed in any managerial or supervisory capacity. The learned counsel has further submitted that even the statement made by the appellant has not been considered in its correct perspective and the relevant aspect of the matter given out by the appellant that he was employed as a workman but was also asked to look after the supervisory work, after one Kanti Lal left the services in the year 1998, has not acquired due attention. We are afraid, the contention as urged do not make out a case for interference.
(3.) During the course of submissions in this matter, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed before us for perusal a certified copy of the statement of the appellant, as recorded before the Labour Court. It is noticed that before the writ Court, only the affidavit forming examination -in -chief was placed on record as Annexure -10 but not the cross -examination part. Be that as it may, in the interest of justice, we have examined the certified copy of the statement of the petitioner, particularly regarding his cross -examination. Having perused the same, we are satisfied that the award made by the Labour Court does not suffer from any perversity or omission to consider any material aspect. The appellant has specifically admitted in the cross -examination thus: It is also noticed that the appellant though alleged having sent a medical certificate about his alleged illness on 01.01.2003 but stated that the postal article came back to him with the endorsement that the establishment was closed. However, the returned envelopment was not placed before the Labour Court. ;