Allahabad High Court
Arvind Mehrotra vs M/S Shervani Industries ... on 20 May, 2013
Bench: Arun Tandon
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12367 of 2010
Petitioner :- Arvind Mehrotra
Respondent :- M/S Shervani Industries Syndicate Ltd. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.K. Mukherjee
A.F.R.
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12367 of 2010
Petitioner :- Arvind Mehrotra
Respondent :- M/S Shervani Industries Syndicate Ltd. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Shesh Kumar
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,P.K. Mukherjee
Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner before this Court was employed with M/s. Shervani Syndicate Ltd., Allahabad. His services were put to an end on 12.05.1995.
Not being satisfied with termination of his service, petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24520 of 1995. In the said writ petition, an objection was raised that the petitioner had the remedy before the Industrial Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The writ Court dismissed the petition after recording that the petitioner may pursue his alternative remedy under the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946.
Against the said order, the petitioner filed Special Appeal No. 1051 of 2001 which was dismissed on 11.09.2006 and the petitioner was relegated to the remedy as aforesaid.
Accordingly, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred under notification dated 23.11.2007 to the Industrial Tribunal I, U.P., Allahabad. Before the Industrial Tribunal an objection was raised that the petitioner did not answer the description of workman as he had been promoted on the post of Area Sales Manager in the month of October, 1989 and that the duties which were being discharged by the petitioner as Area Sales Manager were purely managerial and supervisory in nature. It was also pointed out that the salary of the petitioner on the relevant date was more than Rs. 4000/-.
The petitioner filed reply to the said objection of the employers and stated that he was performing the duties as assigned to him under the control of the Administrator of the Company which were neither managerial nor supervisory in nature.
The Labour Court framed an issue for deciding as to whether the petitioner answers the description of workman or not. Evidence was led by the parties on the said issue. The Labour Court after considering the evidence brought on record has held that the petitioner does not answer the description of workman. He was working as Officer of the Company exercising managerial and supervisory powers, therefore, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act will not be attracted. It is against this Award of the Industrial Tribunal that the present writ petition has been filed.
Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was basically refused to promote the sales of the Company and that the Labour Court has failed to consider that the nature of job assigned was not supervisory or managerial and, therefore, he was a workman. (Reference paragraph nos. 31 and 32 of the writ petition).
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition.
The Labour Court under the order impugned has referred to the order of promotion of the petitioner as Officer dated 01.10.1989 (Exhibit E-1) whereunder the petitioner was promoted as Officer Grade-III and thereafter designated as Area Sales Manager. It has also referred to the circulars which were issued by the Company between 1990 to 1992 (Exhibits 4 and 5) which demonstrated that the Area Sales Manager were authorized to engage staff including Sales Representative, Supervisor, Clerk and Peon as well as to supervise the work assigned to each of them. It has been found as matter of fact that Arvind Mehrotra was engaged as an Officer Grade-III. The duties assigned to him were managerial and supervisory in nature. It has been recorded that the petitioner could not dislodge the contention of the Employer which was based on the evidence brought on record. Accordingly, it has been held that the reference itself was not competent.
This Court may notice that in paragraph nos. 31 and 32 of the writ petition, there are only vague allegations for suggesting that the petitioner actually did not discharge any supervisory/managerial duties. It is worthwhile to reproduce paragraph nos. 31 and 32, which read as follows :
?31. That the Labour Tribunal while deciding the adjudication case on preliminary issue has also failed to consider the most material and relevant fact that as per nature of job assigned to the petitioner it is clear that the petitioner was not assigned any Supervisory or managerial work. Therefore, petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act.
32. That while considering the status of the employees as workman it is the nature of duty or work assigned has to be considered and not designated and from the nature of duties assigned to the petitioner, it is clear that the petitioner was not assigned any supervisory or managerial work, therefore, the petitioner is a workman and finding to the contrary by the Labour Tribunal is absolutely perverse, arbitrary and unsustainable in law.?
This Court finds that there is hardly any challenge worth consideration to the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal qua the petitioner being not a workman. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on the evidence led by the employers. No interference under writ jurisdiction is called for against the said finding of fact.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Surendra Kumar Shukla vs. Union of India and others reported in 1985 UPLBEC, 789 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arkal Govind Raj Rao vs. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd., Bombay reported in 1986 UPLBEC, 38.
This Court may record that the Labour Tribunals are Tribunals with limited jurisdiction as per the Statute. Their power to adjudicate the dispute is confined by the statutory provisions. Under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 only references in respect of workmen can be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal.
Since the Tribunal, in the facts of the case, has held that Arvind Mehrotra did not answer the definition of workmen within the meaning of the word under the Industrial Disputes Act, it has rightly come to the conclusion that reference itself was not competent. It is settled law that if a Tribunal has no jurisdiction to examine the dispute, then no order of the writ Court can confer such jurisdiction.
The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no error in the judgment of the Tribunal. Writ petition is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Dated :20.05.2013
VR/12367/10
