Delhi High Court
A.K.Jain vs The Management Of M/S Shriram ... on 7 February, 2011
Author: Rekha Sharma
UNREPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C) No.768/2011
Date of Decision: February 07, 2011
A.K.JAIN ..... Petitioner
through Mr. Abhay Singh, Advocate with
Mr. N.L.Gupta & Ms. Yasmin Zafar,
Advocates
versus
THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S SHRIRAM INSTITUTE OF
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
..... Respondent
through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA
1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No
REKHA SHARMA, J.
The petitioner/workman has assailed the award of the Labour
Court dated September 04, 2010 holding that he was not a workman in
terms of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently,
further holding that the dispute raised by the petitioner that his
services were illegally terminated by the respondent/Management, was
not an industrial dispute meriting adjudication by a Labour Court.
Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed with the respondent as
a Senior Scientific Assistant and subsequently, promoted to the post of
WP(C) No.768/2011 Page 1
Research Officer 'B'. The only evidence that the petitioner led in
support of his claim that he was a workman, was by way of his own
affidavit. The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the
petitioner was heading research projects and in support, placed on the
record three projects Exh.WW1/M10 to Exh.WW1/M12 which were
completed under his supervision. The respondent also produced
8 leave applications Exh.WW1/M13 to Exh.WW1/M20 to show that
during the course of his duties, petitioner was recommending leaves of
some people working under him, and not only that, he also wrote
confidential reports of some staff members which were placed on the
record as Exh.WW1/M5 to Exh.WW1/M9.
The petitioner has tried to counter the claim of the respondent
by contending that the confidential reports were written by him under
compulsive directions of one Shri Debelkar and against those
directions, he had protested both orally and in writing.
On a perusal of the impugned award, I find that the Labour Court
has held that the petitioner though alleged that he protested against
the directions of Shri Debelkar, both verbally and in writing, but
nothing was brought on the record to buttress the submission that he
had made written protests. The Labour Court has also held that there
was nothing to indicate that the recommendations of the leave
applications by the petitioner were made under any protest.
Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was holding the rank
of Research Officer 'B' at the time he was dismissed from service; the
further fact that the research projects Exh.WW1/M10 to Exh.WW1/M12
were completed under his supervision, and yet further fact that he
WP(C) No.768/2011 Page 2
recommended leave applications Exh.WW1/M13 to Exh.WW1/M20
without protest or demur and wrote confidential reports Exh.WW1/M5
to Exh.WW1/M9 of the persons working under him, it will not be correct
to say that his status in the respondent's establishment was that of a
workman. The nature of work that he was doing indicates that he was
performing administrative functions besides doing research work.
For the fore-going reasons, there is no infirmity in the impugned
award. The writ-petition has no merit. The same is dismissed.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
FEBRUARY 07, 2011
ka
WP(C) No.768/2011 Page 3
