Delhi High Court
A.R. Dial Dced. Thr. Rajan Kumar vs Dcm Shriram Consolidated Ltd. on 29 November, 2007
Equivalent citations: 147(2008)DLT288
Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Sanjiv Khanna
ORDER
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th September, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-Management.
2. By the said order, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 21st May, 1996 was set aside holding that the father of the appellant (now deceased) was a Supervisor and, therefore, was not a Workman within the meaning of definition of the workman as given under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, as it stood at that time.
3. The appellant herein is the son of the deceased Mr. A.R. Dial at whose instance a reference was made to the Labour Court on the following terms and conditions:
Whether the termination of services of Shri A.R. Dial is legal/justified. If not, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
4. The aforesaid reference arose out of the order of termination dated 25th June, 1983 passed by the Management against the deceased Mr. A.R. Dial.
5. In the claim petition by Mr. A.R. Dial, he stated that he was working with the Management, designated as a supervisor and his last drawn wages were Rs. 1,260/- per month inclusive of allowances. His services were terminated by the Management on 25th June, 1983. It was stated that the order of termination was illegal and unjustified and that the designation "supervisor" was merely a misnomer and that the nature of duty performed by Mr. A.R. Dial was manual, clerical and technical and he was not doing any supervisory or managerial/administrative duties. It was further stated that Mr. A.R. Dial was undergoing medial treatment under intimation to the management and his services were illegally terminated and that also without giving him any retrenchment compensation at the time of termination of services as provided under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act.
6. The Management took up the stand before the Tribunal that Late Sh. A.R. Dial was working as a Supervisor on monthly salary of Rs. 1280/- and his main duties were to supervise weavers, helpers and misteries numbering about 175 in his section of the shift and reporting to the Deputy Weaving Master, who was in charge of all the three shifts.
7. In view of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed two issues. The first issue being as to whether Mr. A.R. Dial was a workman or not and the second issue was framed as per reference. The Tribunal recorded the evidence adduced by the parties and on appreciation thereof held in favor of Mr. A.R. Dial and against the Management.
8. The aforesaid award passed by the Tribunal was challenged by filing the writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 4534/1996, which was allowed vide order dated 4th September, 2006 against which the present appeal is filed by the legal representatives of Mr. A.R. Dial on which we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the original records, which we had called to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
9. Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently stated that Late Mr. A.R. Dial was not working as a supervisor, but he was only discharging duties of manual, clerical and technical nature. In support of his contention, he has referred to the pleadings of the parties and also the evidence adduced before the Tribunal. We have perused the same along with the pleadings.
10. Mr. A.R. Dial in para 3 of the claim statement described the nature of his duties as follows:
3. That the designation of the petitioner/workman was a misnomer and he was not doing administrative, managerial or supervisory duties. The nature of duties of the petitioner were manual, clerical and technical.
11. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid statement is vague and without particulars and details, as if the applicant was keeping back full and true information. It does not depict the nature of the work that Mr. A.R. Dial was performing and the fact that he was not working as a Supervisor. The said position was reiterated in the evidence adduced on behalf of Mr. A.R. Dial. Two affidavits by way of evidence were filed in support of the claim petition, the first affidavit was that of the son of Mr. A.R. Dial, who is also an employee under the same Management. In para 4, the son of Mr. A.R. Dial has stated that the designation of the deceased was a misnomer and he was not doing administrative, managerial or supervisory duties and that the nature of duties of Mr. A.R. Dial were manual, clerical and technical. The son of Mr. A.R. Dial was cross examined at length, during the said cross examination he evaded answering the relevant questions put to him. He however, admitted that his father used to work as a shift supervisor, under whom mistress had to work and that shift supervisor used to supervise work of persons working in shifts. He also stated that he did not know what actual work was performed by each workman in the Toyoda Department, the department in which his father was working.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the evidence of Mr. Om Prakash, who claimed himself to be working in Dyeing Department of the mill as a Supervisor. He had stated that the deceased Mr. A.R. Dial was designated as Supervisor at the time of termination but the said designation was for name sake as otherwise he was doing manual job as workman and was working on loom/machine and was also repairing the looms and machines with his own hands. However, in the cross examination he himself stated that he did not work in Toyoda Department and even the deceased was not the member of his union but he knew the working of the deceased in Toyoda Weaving Department because of union activities. It is established from his cross examination that his service was also terminated by the Management and his case was pending before the Tribunal. He has stated that there used to be two supervisors for each shift over the mistress under whom there used to be beam gaters, workers and helpers, respectively in order of the hierarchy.
13. As against the aforesaid evidence adduced on behalf of Mr. A.R. Dial with regard to the nature of duties being performed by him, the Management has led cogent and specific evidence to indicate the nature of work that was being performed by Mr. A.R. Dial.
14. In the written statement filed by the Management the nature of duties being performed by Mr. A.R. Dial has been highlighted as follows:
1. He used to supervise weavers, helpers and mistress numbering about 175 in Toyoda section of the shift and reporting to the Deputy Weaving Master, who was in-charge of all the three shifts.
2. In case there was any break down, the looms were repaired by the overhauling fitters and mistress. It was the function of Mr. A.R. Dial that the work was properly done by overhauling fitters and mistress, and the looms were directly attended by them.
3. Assigning the work to above mentioned workers and supervising their production.
4. Maintaining the shift discipline.
5. Granting leave to the workers and adjusting the workers according to the shift working need.
6. Checking running maintenance work of the looms in the shift.
7. He was responsible for quality production and satisfactory efficiency in his shift.
8. Dealing with day-to-day grievances of the workers under his command.
9. Supervising 175 workers in Toyoda section in the shift. His main functions were of supervisory nature and the manual and clerical work performed by him was negligible. The main duty of Shri A.R. Dial was to take round in the shift and see that the work was performed by the weaving workers properly and efficiently. In view of this he is not a workman as defined Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act and the reference is, therefore, not maintainable.
15. The aforesaid statement in the pleadings was reiterated at least by the two Management witnesses who had deposed and were and cross examined at length. A bare perusal of the said statements, reveals that the nature of the duties, which were performed by Mr. A.R. Dial were supervisory and managerial. He was responsible for quality production and satisfactory efficiency by his shift workers. He was dealing with day to day grievance of the workers under his command. He was granting leave to the workers and adjusting the workers according to the shift working need. He was also managing shift discipline and his main duties were to assign and allocate duties to his subordinates numbering 175 in a shift. It is established from the records that the father of the appellant was in fact not only shift supervisor but also discharging the duties of managerial capacity in view of the fact that he had controlling power over the workers who were working under him in the same shift.
16. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge did not commit any manifest error of law and fact in coming to the conclusion that the father of the appellant was not a workman.
17. In that view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the order and judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence the appeal is dismissed.