Delhi High Court
Ziauddin Ansari S/O. Sh. Hasamuddin vs Presiding Officer Labour Court No. 1 And ... on 26 September, 2006
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
Bench: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
JUDGMENT Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged validity of award dated 12.10.2004 passed by Labour Court-I Karkardooma, New Delhi.
2. Briefly, the facts are that petitioner was working with the respondent as a Senior Civil Engineer. He was transferred from Delhi to Ghaziabad factory on 1.1.2002 and thereafter he worked at Ghaziabad establishment. The services of petitioner were terminated on 4.7.2002 at Ghaziabad, petitioner raised an industrial dispute about termination of his service at Delhi, which was referred by the Government of Delhi in following terms:
whether the services of Sh Ziauddin Ansari s/o late Hisamuddin, B-209, Mandawali Fazalpur, behind Mother Diary Patparganj, Delhi-92, have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what sum of money as monetary relief along with consequential benefit in terms of existing laws/Government notification and to what other relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect.
3. The respondent took the stand that petitioner was not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act and the Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the reference since industrial dispute, if any, had arisen in Ghaziabad within the territory of U.P. Government and U.P. Government was the appropriate Government. Tribunal framed issues whether the petitioner was a workman or not and whether the tribunal had territorial jurisdiction or not. Tribunal held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the reference and answer the reference. The Tribunal did not devolve upon the issue whether the petitioner was a workman or not.
4. I consider that petitioner, who was working as Sr. Civil Engineer and having responsibility of looking after the construction work of various projects undertaken by the management in Ghaziabad and other places, could not be termed as workman. In order to entertain dispute of an employee he must be covered by the definition of workman as given under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act. An employee can be termed as a workman only if he is employed to do manual, unskilled, skilled, operational, clerical or supervisory duties. In case of supervisory duties, he should be drawing salary of less than Rs.1,600/- p.m. Petitioner being a Sr. Civil Engineer and having responsibility of looking after the construction work of the projects of the management cannot be said to be employed to do manual, unskilled, skilled, clerical or operational duties. A Sr. Civil Engineer, who has responsibility to oversee the construction would be doing only supervisory duties and since the salary of petitioner was Rs.9,000/-, he cannot be said to be covered under definition under Section 2(s) and is not a workman. The test as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in H.R. Adyanthaya and Ors. v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. is that for a person to be a workman under Section 2(s) he must be employed to do manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work. It is not sufficient that he does not fall under the exceptions given in Section 2(s). It is not the case of petitioner that he was doing manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work. In the case of Management of Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ajit Singh 2005 LLR 309, Supreme Court held that a person, who performs one or the other job as mentioned in Section 2(s) only would come within the purview of definition of workman. Merely because an employee is not performing managerial or supervisory or administrative duties, he would not be a workman. Teachers, artists, persons giving legal opinion etc. have been held not to be a workman.
5. It is undisputed that petitioner was posted at Ghaziabad at the time of his termination. In case, G.S. Batra v. R.N. Mehrotra 2004 LLR 445, the head office of management was situated at Bangalore but the employee was posted at Delhi and the cause of action had arisen at Delhi. This Court held that the Tribunal at Delhi shall be having jurisdiction because the services of the workman were terminated in Delhi and cause of action had arisen in Delhi. In the case of Workman of Shri Ranga Vilas Motors v. Sh. Ranga Vilas Motors Pvt. Ltd. , Supreme Court held that the situs of workman's employment in case of termination of his service was patently paramount factor to determine the jurisdiction. It is within the area of employment that the order of termination operates and the workman ceases to be workman and loses his right to hold the post, therefore the Tribunal/Labur Court of that area shall have jurisdiction. I am of the opinion that the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that it had no territorial jurisdiction.
6. I find no infirmity in the award, even otherwise the petitioner is not a workman and no dispute could have been referred by the U.P. Government or Delhi Government to the Tribunal.
7. In view of my discussion above, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.