DINESH CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. ASST LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has moved this Court for the quashing of the order dated March 21, 1980 of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) refusing to initiate conciliation proceeding under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, 'the Act') and for a mandamus directing the opposite party No, 1 to act in accordance with law.

(2.) THE petitioner has alleged that he was appointed as an Insurance Agent by the New India Assurance Company Limited, on May 6, 1977. He was appointed as Junior Inspector with effect from November 21, 1977. With effect from January 1, 1973, his service was terminated. His representations to the authorities having yielded no result, he moved opposite party No. 1 to mediate for settlement of the dispute which arose due to the termination of his service. Opposite party No. 1 relying upon decision of the Madras High Court in M/s. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. Madras v. Shri A. Shrinivas and others ( writ petition No. 184 of 1977), refused to take action holding that the petitioner, essentially a field officer, was not a workman coming under the definition of 'workman' given in Section 2(s) of the Act.

(3.) IN Verma's case the question was if a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The Supreme Court cautioned that while adjudging whether an employee came within the category of labour or management, one should not be carried away by the appellation or the glorified designation. What is germane was the nature of the duties assigned. Then Their Lordships went on to consider the terms and conditions.