L M Glasfiber General Employees Union vs The Assistant Labour Commissioner on 7 March, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

L M Glasfiber General Employees Union vs The Assistant Labour Commissioner on 7 March, 2008

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

   s, Kasaba 'Indu.s'iI:'i:a:i"Ama

 

BETWEEN:

LM Glasﬁber General Employees Unio1'i--- .V
Fiot Nos.61 85 62  "
Kasaba Industrial Area

Hosakote --- 562 114 , '  
Rep. by its General Secretary   __ 
Sri C.M.Praaanna :

Aged. about 29 yr.:a..1"3=

. The Assistsant Lais311rAVComznissioner
And Conciliation vommf %  '   '
!€..sLIr'I.n1i_|:1.'-..t:-..l'.31.':.;'I=:*.rt..=-.M1"-..I..=. '. I  '
Banncrghatta Rbagl v 

.. Duu5u4=a.;.'c-563 0155'  '

 
M/_ s}LM'GV]&g%er__Itn;lia Pvt.L1Ii.
P101'. _NO;ﬂ,5 1 $62' ~ .. V ' 3

[Ci _  _

Hosakbie -.f562'"114. .. REsPom)EN1*s

'  Mundargi. GA for R-1

A J..-

ennui».-an. an-aura.

«  ..:.. V. 4-,...
'. Sn-Sbzbsalunuya, nuv. .l.U1

 Mjgrahocpalam Law Assts_., for 12-2)

   H;I"'his Writ Petition is ﬁled under Article 226 of the
 '=«_C3¢mstitution of India praying to issue a writ of  or ﬂy
 Vgappmpxiate order modifying the order dt.21.1.2008 granting the

s-.t.r.=.t'-._'.s of "pm+-......ted we-rmen" m the 1'.-:6 %'*..x'.r=ca %'.:y',



% .S _ri.'S._'C'.Kuxna_ran- 85 sri.c. -fol."-the.-
.-vide  of the ﬁrat respondent. e't_c.,. i ' j .

-A.I..k.L A4, 11!!!! _,A,A_ 7-Jgj l'AII',_____--_.....

"H.131, OIIC HoUoh anu L;u" . ..

.2.

the frhisjpetition on for dicta1ingTo1Ii;¢:j1's_:T'thisj¢1%iE?§.:"

tn ﬂmlltnninas I In-gs: _ In W II III drill-AIIIII ll_-lav L"-_ "has questioned the - " "

passed by. the ﬁmt iespondcint pmduehd é._t "

' I O ~Dnnr\nvu"Inni'.IIA 1 'mar +1-us an sxuuyvuuuuu nvua. 5.1; uau 5 of.t_ﬁe- Indusuiaj '§Di§puteg_ tdas '-the Act') % f and tbcy ' 2007-63 ; % ¢)'i'pe*Ei4iiis1-141'(:1:'_'ia one S-.€:.i€umamn- % _C.-iiarasirnhaxinﬁxﬂny aaTpm1,.ac°t.ed f"o_r % T %20o:7+oa. on 17.9.1505} as 7 - L. _ BB"-,='bo't1_1 agfrgam Leaders w.e-.-f. .1-t 2005, _ axeaskof responsibility

-letters, these: an: I I I L = gy -::1.m.:g.1 .21=,9..me5, ma";-.T

-I-Inn ,L¢nh:I-nu-'1 _.l ,nI-uh-":1-v ("i-uinvn-'nabs:-"31-I " :111;n'.j,'1inI-u-nu' 'I - -1-if thjs":t{%}:e:isun*j'*tion%%éf the ﬁf%n. iﬁ_ﬂ¢"0cT'.'.T- 4%-% L "

T 'y%cicftob%etr%2Oo5%intera:ia%aj11eging that. j T T " .3}:

.3- $-

with Team Leaders, which is not acceptable to the Management and the Management cannot recognize the said Union. In this regard, the Assistant Labour Commisioner replied Management by letter dated 22.10.2005 intemlia _ the Union is regstered under the provisions of h d'--*~'---- '-If rt'.-* of_ f 1* Act 19% and also m the Labour "ii the feéisization of the 'lJ',ni_on he of this. as many as 13 Team lreaders. by the Management, requestedthe to them from the said post with of the same, they also sent the post of the Team Leader;

4. ahi;yaja§la 1¢a¢:hheated 4.11.2005 rejected the request that, they have willfully participator! and accepted the promotion.

that, the"Team Leaders insistzthat they should be ﬁcsiﬁon, the Management will be compelled ' the service of the Company on the "is-'on *~ 0*'; the at-.condi% resignation ﬁtter. On 5%.

:'vi""'erner1t reverted as many as 11 'Team A?" to their original position except these two workmen. The V ' Manaaement did not extend the said beneﬁt to these two lilworlonen are concerned. In turn, by charge heet dated' .4-_ 17.8.2006, these two workmen were charged with an allegation that, their irresponsible act has resulted in theﬁ o$""company's property. act of subversive of discipline is prejudicial to the interest of the Company, called upon these two workmenjto it nreanwhile, they were On 5 4.12.2!) i V i V m. the Enqniw of" the v-nu';

workmen to %k the e-f--'-*-*--- .p""'-'«*-'p':.'t.:.*..sr'.i;.e:,-.9;-A..:-E.'-.'..-. Advr-M-......+.e on the ground that the stanza-'.i'u_gf';~eé:rier*sf_ eoiﬂthe Company will net permit to engage__ theg'outeit;ler te. Based on the enquiry dismissed from service' by orfdervdated of are produced by --_ with the objection. statement at Annexu r=e= eed"R3.': V workmen were treated as protected t .eVwcrkroeri_'fo:i-' the period of 2006-07 and the order was called " the Management in W.P.No.17393I20G6 as per eeeeem.ee and the said writ petition was dismissed in view of .. it for which the workmen were declared as protected * had ljherty was given to the parties

-nu-ind-an nnru-unnﬂdnan Th! L111. fl to rise all "*n'-r_ei'.i'u'r:e in amm,...e..... ,,..w.................. ..... ........ had requested the Management. to declare 5 wo"r'.n'r'nen- as protected workmen including these two worlcrnen by dated f L aw .

-5.

5.3.2007 for the year 2007-08. and had also theiinformed the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 6.3.2007. In mgaid, IBP!'B8C111Bﬁ0I1.W'aS also made by the Union on the Assistant Labour Commissioner to intervene declare the ofﬁce bearers including: these 00 H workmen for 2007-08. A ninety also'.,'A.ﬁlcti.V 7' ..ss1..ten. !.......u. C...n.n.t.n.iss...n.._.;:' - n 3 5 21.307 V. rennests .. Q: I ---.uI-----uI- A-scan f-'1u¢nn.avu-n:1nan'4-mung.-no were made to the vn,=.'.'I . me. as ﬁr Annexures-N. o. 'P an«i"o:;t .7 :ii.7.*"oo7. the Assistant Labour Commissioneriideeiiaijcdj' uiivorkmen out of five workmen as order was called in quesﬁon._..befotie 1251312007. This Court 'Assistant Labour Commissioner to consider whether, these two ernployees wene worionen as on_V_the date. of making application and entitled for ...e-cisrinfg s protected In t..._.his regard. in '~ p'"'i.iI'$f'L'i".'T1'7'f' ofﬂie order of this %*iirt, hot}; the '.'.'or""-.....en gave mptesentation on 20?" Septem' 'oer :?0t')7 to the Assistan' t Labour AAComn1istsioner for declaring them as 'protected workmen'. Hotéever. again the Assistant Labour Commissioner rejected the viequest by his Older dated 29.10.2007. Again, Union ﬁled- another writ petition in 'W.P.No. 17284[2007. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 27.11.2007 interalia, 1 e9*%-

- 5 -

directing the Conciliation Oﬂioer to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law aﬁer pmvidtng ah opporttthttyjtdhhoth the parties. While disposing, this Court the Conciliation Oﬂicer has not considered _Union in its rejoinder dated 1o.5;;26o*rt aleaftheiii nmdt . in support of the .n%i_*.er ﬁ petition, Main ﬂan "*.-.-tyne ﬁCIi'x*:'=.p_i';'E'ﬁi"'¢?'='I':i"1"':'i'1 'n abs' '7' aiong withzftte neoeseaiy

6. The Arespont1cIfii~--.p also ﬁled fphn rt s" mytdgththhs the r.*:et-..-:t;....I4=-mt oﬂ=«-- I-I;/IIJ I of the evidence 'oy his oxderidateti the members of the Union are not cannot be declared as 'protected woritrnenit ~!t_is in question by the Union.

"1 """ «:"tnant.t'1m"a.m. learner} wnnael for the ﬁtitiriner - . !_ ma" t the workmen in question" were eiecteti as oﬁﬁce-beazeis. The Union was tegiatmd. When the ..Manageinent took objection of forming an Union by Team all the workmen. who were promoted as Team Leaders it __;i.e., as many as 13, they tendered their resignation and requested the Management to revert them back to original post. He submitted thatias per Annexures-K1 to K9 dated 27.9.2006, 1,/' yr':

ta .7...

_ 1...] am am r 11 W rlrinen, Wh nuu w"§ht for pt-:i'ii'iissioi'i * '-"* to reset.

them back to original post. were permitted and Vfthey were reverted back to the position treating thetn t However, insofar as these two workmen are dated 7.8.2006 produced at wee initiated by issuing of article eteeeeee * ' under suspension. He

-311..- to deny the @nest of reversion to urn the .x5u.I.uu. pu""S|.. uc ﬁtiusu mun date of suspension of 3}': other 11 "'et?tm Leaders However. as far as these enquiry was only with them being declared as 'protected wet-htnenr,%irhe initiated aiter long lapse of time. He 4;fu1'tl1er'4.Vsttb:1I1ittetVi when the Union was registered ., .91' two workmen and other workmen, the objection and in response to the same, all the "Tenet "hr "'ere rroznote-ii as Team. Lealm. tendered t-I, "

__..1..I 'I. .._-_ resignation. if the action was to fﬁkéﬂ, it Shaun uuvc 1366' inlmediately. Having rejected request earlier, 'subsequently chasing only 11 persons out of 13 and denying the said beneﬁt to these two workmen is nothing but adopting unfair labour practice and h victimising these two workmen. with .3.

intention to prevent the Union being represented by eﬂbctive workmen.

4.1.- ..

8. He also s"hmit'ued that, l.I.l ' gh they 'i"a1--u Leaders, they never worked asgﬁiupervistsrhior " _ they were functioning under the 4*:

any independent charge andithe " in the superiors. In this he the documents produced along withjﬂthe 11.12.2007 wherein the learre applications'Vor::overV.tiinseduties sought for by the two worl:.rn..en and they had no p-iwver 811" and such assiment W-s ent-.'ustedi'to..t;1eseiwerknfn ¢"TsF'ﬁ before they were promoted as 'Team . that the responsibilities alleged in the _appoii1tInent are nothing but reiterating -the v which -------- were already discharged by these two ' there is no change in the nature of work. He . the nomenclature of Team Leader'. it was j neitherithey post nor was supervisory post, nor these 'V V' ., workmen were discharging the functions as Supervisor or 'Manaeer, In this rec.-a...., he ml;-,d on ﬁre Lnpaﬁa "rater --ti submitted art the ﬂoneiiiation has taken into consideration ail the extraneous matter. Though the documents were produced before the said authority, the authority has failed .9.

to notice the nature of work assigned to these two worlnnen. Conciliation Oﬁcer has observed that. 20 members wetje"worldng under these workmen and they had the time _ and also recommend for leave and that, the nature of responsibility ﬂu 2 were dieehmging the functions in in no as work.-h..en. He A VV..... ..j .. .... it ."i-. .. r.i......r .. -1:

if', u'? M e .... n... _....;...__:..1 ..a......1 1._:..__ $1.5." " -44' ..._- _ .. .. on me uiurcrrur y1uv.mu,=ucrurc, 5 an mi 3' . uauu _u acu- serving inference regarti, he aiso submitted ithe' not granted the pennission. the original position.

When for registration of the Union these workmen and others admittetlly gjhatil resignation, not accepting the msignation back to the original post and in 1 iiiii .. .ea.1n !...--ad.ers and there-after nu": :'--l- n-unra-n«=u-nn:vI- fkgyrn Inn! fhgcn -I11-In-'qu- ﬂulllﬁ In I-IIKIIII II' IILIGPII Is NI-I»\I»I:I.I Iullnl-II'!-I suspensioniand thereafter oniy in respect of other 11 nothing but victimization of these two workmen and V' that the Management has adopted unfair labour practice in creating diﬂerences amongst the equally . placed workmen by granting permission to few and rejecting as against 'w.-ieti.'nizat-Zen; He su mi 1 as t . .10.

some. In support of contention. he on a judgment reported in 2007-IiI--LLJ 953 in the matter of MURALIIHSARAN K

--vs- MANAGEMENT or CIRCLE FREIGHT INTL. A¢..(1_i'«.iVIV)v'i':':;\4J')'~Ve.i'4'*.AI_V."I'D. and submitted that, it is the natuze of work is to know as to whether the relied on another judgment J no; I-'(LI 3 - r--.«.Vu -

. UNDER 1... 1.. -JAIN' Hem-rrA;_. Knnsguczttaz Union d- 'that. in case of oif_j'uéntice;f_ can' " ** interfere with the order of submitted that, promoting its isnoit to decide as to whether he or Manager. but the naturepf snd the function assigned to the I workman the as to whether he is worlnn' g in the supervisory or not.

" v _ 9, workmen have sought for reversion. there was no Management to keep them in the post of Team er continue than in the same post and thereafter, it V' ». suspend and hold an enquiry is nothing but a clear case of produced before it and in turn' has drawn 1n1eren' ''i 's cc on consideration of extraneous matter unconnected with the dispute .11- and tire reasons assigned do ht --"pfao'rt the oonciiision. Same is not based on the cogent reasons. none of the dmnments produced by the Management prove that these were discharging the functions of ﬁndings of the Assistant Labour V

10. "ri.Suhrarnanya, Management submitted that, on 31.7.1995 wher'eas.*~.r_ on 3.11.2000. They were based on selection Va ., Since Narasrmharr' special' skill and _ it as the Team. !.-en..d.ers, Accordir;gly, M the se..~.;..-n pr-crass and base"-.u _ I'l\ _ 'l___I_ s ream" ucauc". He on the au1n€,.'I.i1¢'.=j7 were V. A. that, the areas of responsibilities were speciﬁcally 1n;e'ntion.eci~irn..ithe_ appointment orders. Item Nos.4. 6 and 7 of the il:L~y}'.areas'Eo1leai'ly'v.. reveal the responsibility and the functions of V -V the and they were accordingly the monetary H " 'Speciﬁcally they were brought under the Management and in the Management hierarchy. Team Leader is also it "one of the posts and in this regard, they were provided ' ' ' H ' rvnlrnr hf nnnnhnﬂsiiinn -I-I-an ans. .|.n;|.Iav -I-I-I-'l\.t an \l-I. I: -u.|.I.I5I.l-1 I 3 III-rVI'\.aL Ill lla§\tl.l\4I4I.|al-[Ills I-I-Ila F A e duties and frrnviﬁinﬁ to rat ¢?3»?'r"'/ 0 .12..

the staff. The nature of assignment cieariy shows that they were functioning as the Manager and they had all of the Manager and they had discharged the said 'also i submitted that the nature of work done by aﬂer they became Team Leaders oi:

work they were carrying as worhnen. it it standing order doesiiiot' "an";Advoetite 'I-

Iu-scnru-II: Ipvv V! ......l_.., 3- ..-

or 5 'ﬁr '' C 0:! U H E. ..

appiicabie beceuse they post they were dddt ed». siibmitted that the work assigned_Vto"'thfe an additional work, but it is an is not the work they were dischargmii ' L 3 eaﬂiei'. M i " He the ﬁndings of the Assistant Labour and submitted that the Assistant Labour A issioneeiheing the fact ﬁnding authority, on app1ec1a' tion hds these two persons are not worlnnen and they do "uot._coVrVi1e within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act. The facts by the authority. He also submitted that this Court V " "nnnnn gg II"I'h"I fhg .J_ in 'I' ' que..ﬁ_.oz-.s of Iruiul-I..p.nI.a1. an.-

E E >5 :

E :

1

- ,6'/1'/,'.

.;3.

12. in iepiy submitted that. the worlunen were pursuing their request for reversion. Howeverjthey wen:

suspended whereas those, who were pursuing iequest along with these two 'workmen, were back to the original position. He . just because these workmen are 1' not it it suiﬁcient to hold that they 11.... subm_.itted that. the egg;-li<,*s*'@:*.-- £§'3.. sat of's*.sa't1es of 'protected worwan' was ﬁled and it is the date of afppiieation, which is for and not the date on which submitted that the a lengthy order. but it lacks I of the evidence adduced by the Union suppmi: heir): dig-gndteitcéae and in turn, the ﬁndings are eneneous .'notV'sustainab1e. The impugned order is based " onho legslVh'evidence and no _r.-_ the eo..clusbn. Counsel for the respondent No.2 - had relied on a judgment reported in 2005-I-LL.-J Q seeuinitthe matter of VISHAKANTAIAH 'l'.N. -vs- MANAGEMENT 'AAMYSORE pmno Q!-IEM!_.AL!3 LIMFFED. RAICHUR e n ma .1;-9 ml;-ed on .=..-. jud-went za-v-+~=,......;.. in AIR SHELL OiL'ST"'AGE 1'\Ni") 'Di"T'Rl'"T'iﬁG T). OF' INDIA LTD. &. OTHERS --vs; THE .14- TIRMAH SHELL G"T'FF Amc:A':':or.* «'5 OTHERS. He also relied on an unreported judgment of this Court in w.P.No.33915/2004 dated 14th AIRFREIGHT EMPLOYEES UNION and EH}. WORLDWIDE EXPRESS P'\l'I'.L'I'D:«.&s"1":!9!()"l'l%'{4'I.?V}'l'('f;4"in '

14. Learned Counsclgfogj * on' a judgment reported in 2002--Il'¥L1;_)»959 to «may in declaring the amounts to miscarriage of justice. judgment reported in 1985-II-LLJ oovmn RAJ RAO --vs-

oznn oEtowkn"ot-* %«mou5 in support of his coatéénblozaﬁgat, 6?... gap Esme: is also 9. workman. He also .......... 4- AF {-11 In ("tn-=11'-t ha 33 5:

on' w.p.Nos.29s31i:aoo:¢, 3'27"'ii'2""i, -"717i-'ﬁG1 and = _ insuppozt of his contention.

" -..I5, " E'.~.f't1.V1o light o. *...e 9-...o... an..:.n.i--Z_ns. th 9,. cation that arisesvfor «f:onsidr:r'ﬁo- "' thi" "T512 petition is: z the Assisiam' Labour '"' "'"""""""""' é S. S s u.':'_¢'}'iwr j-.:s$;','.-'ed -In rejec.!£r;,' the ......-'m of' J-.. U.' ..'..n. to declare, two of the oﬂioe beaners as the protected workmen only on the ground that, they are not the workmen _withn'n the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Industrial Disputes Ad. by interpreting the nature of work or not?' '

15. Facts, which ate not in dispute in this eaeegaie: The petitioner -- Union was registered on 17,9.Q OQ5 and the two workmen in question were the .___ - __,._._. ._...., ..._ .. _....,.. fer dec'....--mg 'Jam as $:'.':«%*ei=:'u wttrki-iiiei".'. '~."é-""'1""""'**""i""'-§ai13_i'. ' -"

i 3160 rrt dispiife that by eivier deiﬁeti'i'*.13v='- ﬁligﬁet theme of the woricmen including 'as Team Leaders under in Annexures-AA and $ under the promotion upon the ﬁromotion, the Team t by the Company's rules and ﬁa'pp!';t3§able to all the Management 2.1311'. 4' and I.a.t_x_=r_1.I_-1.I.1.t.:.a.l.1i!ii.y were an -n-I-ulna:

an u-.uI..I.u:o V.s'?*eﬁ_____t'qrgeis are met' as me A " properly (workshop order, Checklist, * pmductiviiy. 5& etc.) ' eanditiane ,ft2.r 0 D I fl ' awe. for O-m-"#93. Cast'. i'.'.'rs'i-tier-'-is as strife jrmwn Technicians' /ﬂame' % on pmem, pmduc.¢.' and eafety. and working insttudioris.-

5. Monitoﬁng the usage/damage. t Jlilaintenanee of tools _nequi.I1gt1_,f'or -

/ AJQ 1""-J' .16.

6. Motivation and discipline of the tedmidans as per the Ir... -..-9.!-..sm asr... gI.4r'¢.1.e!:'ne-5 -- lead by example. 'r'. Reaper.-sibia for 1*-.3! ediotmerat, leave, late coming "as early going, ' preparation, oompiafni reporting, paﬁ'iﬁ'fvat'iu-it The 7 key areas of responsibility assigned to the workmen, who

17. When the iinion was the two workmen in question asiitgiiﬁce:-'beare§" as cut an objection hefor=e_ the;AmAssistantV:'vii.aboui§i Vfiiommissioner on 21¢ September; that; A-supeieisors and workmen are _ conditions and they cannot form -. upon the Assistant Labour t Conimissionerv to registration certiﬁcate. It is alleged the p-reior.-is', who have been prernoted as Team Leaders, . 601116 the "fl':""jr' -f 'S""-raiser' and 'dig hot he the ml. .1.

or the it is aiso aiieged that ar muuug"' --t will not Union. The Assistant Labour Commissioner A. the said request of the Management alleging that the it Union is registered in terms of the provisions of the Trade Union EAct, 1926 at the direction of the Commissioner and held that the I cancellation of the same does not arise. ﬁne?/O. /' I fr ml .47.

13. It is alsd not in dispute-hthat, when the, workmen, who ' were promoted' as Team Leaders and "the:

objection of they being part of the Union and sought for geversion of their position lsupcnnvisor to worlunan by their 1.131 I 13- n :'h no-.1r-nnnn had mndg g_ nenn pquunmpa 'cur----n-:_-any no---n _-u--w------- V ------'V.._~ 'mun II-nan Iﬂpuoua-u'.:-rant n_:rlI- '"-T. _u_y .u.IG lVlﬂlIlIﬂ_§£l:V °" .+'_""""' " "' A .

1-


Management has   anﬁ-' 
WWW" in the  
the pmlnoﬁqnffilld    If" fhe-_
3 Ma.na.gcm§cnti"j§    to. the. position of

wodm-an--.*b¢h ' be compelled to [relieve 'Company pn anbnﬁssion of fletter and .'inforxned_ h '-7 up----__-

-1' pmghhhah 1. .__t-tn-:1'I_rI_i,s+Ii'h|e.' of T

--. it': {"5-I'D.-n.1I -nu:-an-ng-3. the "_ Q '.1?'3!.'...."€'.' by .the '-:5 ._ve?i:n;";TA¢:t11!;éi1.;v1"o_rfLI'-vers' ion. .» u .. }19..' As things stood thus; antler-' % I " 'Ze8£.J.-tE.¥JI.',- an Qagainht L ;against*-the cilafﬁehsnheet, a -mpiy .' 'in'-question and they also for pf can 7 -for which the Manaacm_ f'tli:_¢-.i;It_a1'1('li_I1.Il bxtiéf .18.

of the Company does not permit for engaging outsider or Advocate and subsequently. it was clariﬁed by the stating that, two workmen come under the categogj and they are not governed by the standing . V'

20. It is also not in dispute t.-mt the enquiry. the Management ilother post as per their order dated ' to K9.' It is necessary to menﬁenf'hen.é_VA order is passed by the Management in 25111 October 2005 and the renewal Except two workmen, in mswt o. '_t' tests. -l.n ww passed by @065 2065. As noted eariier. even these two worlunen made a request along with the other " _ on 2'A3*"1"0<-.~ta)ber 2005 and on 14* July 2006. There is .neaso'n;'assigned by the Management as to why their request.

which on 25"' October 2005, was not considered when , was no enquiry against them till 7.8.2006. It is 2 » undersmndablc that, if the two workmen had made a request ".'=*'*'-A-" they '.1.'-m "hm-' and... sI...spensio:1., there could Q been .19.

21. it is aiso not in dispu" the' 'these 1*" 'fJE1""au""u were also oﬂice.-bearers and their names were 'by the Union for declaring them as 'protected worltrnenft.' ~aost'ssmamd. the Union, which is espousing the cause of petition and along with the peti1ior:rt.."it»-.~.r1soVVof:' 'documents. The Assistant the J ; impugned order rejected thevirxeiqrrest of '~ _ theg two persons as on .so1e§ground that, they _._.. _-t ..._.i._1......_.. .".;:.,.:.I'.'.'i.:....'-4-1»..3;'.'.v-._."na'-this-u"' n-I-' Mn C wiunul ~1_.u7. ruI;au,J.Lsq_g-nu:

E 5

22. the mam' ground on which these reeri2,r=.-t A. as workmen is that, they have Leader ad the pee. is sewn" L... .-:y in nature and the of Learier has key area of untabilily. such as they are authorised to ' regard to medical expenditure. in regard to leave. H 'in. in regard to arran. ging of the shrft' and in at ging of the employment. However. the authority observed that, even though they are working as it does not change the nature of the job assigned' to it '"'th-..-xv-.., as they have been pmructeti as Team Leader and incidentally, eve" 11- um} .1: 1n, m. min not meant t.-:.~-%....eg .m-- 9. ' I' ! I D I E' 3' L /Mr' '_ up and reiying on various judgments, the authority that. two persons in respect of whom the cause the Union are not worianen.

in order to seek stains of has to be an union mgismmdhfta alhh as an entity connected with the rules made in this acquiring the status of protected the persons, who can take the c to: the rights of their fellow dispute and in this regard.

they 'targeted and i_ _m_r to protect thent, kl! Q 51] "--' ' flilll' if ﬂ-u'-I 'J-Ill' I': bﬂiltalll-.lﬂ.l E?

0 ~ & "

its ""~.yt%c*tn tq a statue ____ cf 'protected workmen' protecting fmm » their service or by acts of the is not that the 'protected workman' status is only with intention to ﬁght against the Management. . ttr.rl::,iectV'u:ras to protect the interest of both Management and the labour for the industrial peace and harmony and to create

-"conducive atmoia-_phere for welfare of both. In order to become a pm-tected '.-zo.I.'1m-..........=-'1, he has to be a w..r1rm.........mI I.I.7it..._.11iﬂ th... mnin namanuo -u 'I It _ la-l..| I Ch .......:I -4' I'.-..I..-d-.l..'l U. I 1151 ll hi Cnjibl'

24. Rule 6.2 of the Rules framed under th___ e the Industrial Dispute Aet reqI.1.='....s t..at,i ttnion mtnzwtg.-t'. with the crammunieate to the empioyer hefote~ the names and addresses diet Union 'for recognizing them as .the_ it any dispute arises between the the power is conferred on of the dispute under Rule of the Readinu of Section 33(4) of the Act. .621j§tekes it that, except in the ease of dispute, i_\_t!'nnage_ent is mq-aim"... m the sts.t=.i5s.__<of.Va 'pest...-c .,;;.- warmer. -"' r'""""-t me" natnes .t'ne__Iegistered union' to the extent of limitation L' if Section 33(4) of the Act i.e.. 1% of the total ii" ofvwotkinen employed in the establishment £55; In this '|.|:t:""' tiisptite was to the ease.

A 5"' Go as the 'Management not agree with the .' iatames of these two persons on the ground "that, they ate the "Team Leaders and they come under the category of Supervisor. ,3 .22.

('I2

150. 'r..ca;r11" "ed Caounsei appearing for the petitioner on a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1985-ll-LLJ (supra) and submitted that, to decide as to whether is workman or not, the primary duties assigned to be considered and not the additional-or to him. In this regard. be relied on;"pa1'a3I'a' V " p1is«6.atie4.ii J and submitted that the 'Ldgat has observed th.a:_t; -._tI_ﬁ.er" t:he_se€'=IIr'itv factory u.u""'d its .de'pu'.i"§-'ﬁ*af'-'amen %i"k*i.'iﬁ under to Wcrk 't ﬁctory'gi?z}ied to watohtowers or around otitoi to the factory and making or any other such works, they not purview of duties of Supervisor 'or Manager; .__If a are done by the workmen, they do not eonfer the status of supervisor. He also submitted that. just i of Sunerv1so_ ' r or Manasze_ r is stated in 1sppoinﬁ_ne:it1~~_rder, that ..y it._..1. w..u_.. 11.! .._...f..--. -..t.=.I.-.I.-.. .1' Sure1'vis:-er' mm"-ss he is d&hw"g the f'"'ctio"s "s Suﬁrvisor. nn"y wufg 'c1u'"c':i'1'I.auy"L' don" "oe' not oonstitute the functions of In this regard, as extracted above in the order of guomotion. '7 key areas are mentioned. whether they by themselves constitute the work of supervisory nature or they are nothing but the work that is discharged by the workmen "in _ .._.__.I£__ _ 'I_ .lI'lLL_ I, earner W r . rue ey mentioned in the appointment letter are -that. ensuring implementation and safe working conditions cost, deliverable and safe working. technicians] trainees on process.

worlcing instructions. " I maintenance of tools, technicians as per the vaiuesufsnd __._pon...I.-1e for the shift allottnent. GP. '-M' '-'- -'-"'-"

and esrh going indent if; complaint reporting. Management meeting.

No appointment order, it says that. on j Leaders. they come under the category} "dust mentioning as the managerial' that not confer the status of Manager or the .- V, to be noticed is, the actual I of fn.nch'on In the c1.a.ps.eit3,r of St.p-:_'.-zvl....r ..r i.. t...e cap.w1="it3#.efi'§a£an%er. Along with th- "-'"'- -""'tion, doe'u.'u'ients ___'I 'I___ are 'ﬁdijaeeu oy the Union showing the ieave appiication, over-

"ij"'AAii1ne'A";wecommendaﬁon. etc... From the said documents produced the writ petition also it shows that. these persons had the only right to recommend for sanction of leave and also sanction of over-"time. It is not an independent power conformed on them to .24.

sanction ieave. even 'before they were promoted as Team Leaders. they were discharging this power. What appears the appointment order is that. only is conferred on them and not sanctioning the clauses-1 to 7 in the key of!' accountability shows any J persons to discharge the ﬁznctions last woilrer seine 1' in the canncifv of _ it i :

1--------7f.-o---J

27. The power Assistant Labour Commissioner under Rule of the Rules is quasi judicial as the Coin"! .o. t_h_e D-.o!:a__...,vIs=I¢ge'.td1'rI'.':.*.n.. If be Is 'e.;e......."-g a quasi judicial '-"wet. he is 1------.....--'«e".~.'_. to-«_""' ":13? consider ﬁne factors. No doubt, the runs into severai pages, but at the V. theiieasons given are not cogent reasons to support ' his..eon_ciusion..__ The authority has relied more on the power of H to grant leave, power of Ieoomm' endation to overétime to some persons working under him and for shifts. In order to support its conclusion, the authority also states that, e-mail ID is you to these persons.

"Gmmg of e-rnsﬂ 1D -1' re.r.'___r.iI....di....g .9. samtlon of have cm-inst be e'nara*~'*i*ii'aerl to say that. ﬁiey are independently discharging power over some of the employees. It also does not K Mir! , €775? -

ar;d'i-rrrrc Slﬂii show that, ﬂaw act as 3- ru 13 in -his case. we ' p gneu order more on the consideration of extraneous circumstances by quoting some examples that." if some one also works in connection with the it does not change the nature sgoiiooooooo incidentally ifhe has worked as worr _ on it am; fo the nature. or work. But if functions earlier also if "workers... a-..i,..ed. to h___L, he ezmnct be .9." Supervisor. Lear':-ra Counsel for the .vr-eswncieratf:- V on the jutigrnent of 1971 SC 922 (supra) and relied on and submitted that. in ernpioyment, as to whether it is a supenrisory4work'o.or:~i:not;' has considered the work carried on otter persons and also the supervision' 7 V. 'consideration. such as control. diuretic' ' n it reallocation of work to the employees wcrlh1.."gv:rnd§:ri1:i'.:-.. "o do--ht *''-= '"-=*' €.?our't conﬁeﬁnﬁ the u _____ '__ ___ _f'_ _ ____ |__ ._ 1- 1 11 1 a gun a - case nas rouna mat. sruueu and "if ernpioyees -were working under the Supervisor and the Supervisor had the control and power over those workmen and i had power to issue direction to allocate and re-allocate the work to them. and to initiate disciplinary proceedings. etc... Such facts . Leane1_fs.and' «it is not in dispute that, an m .26..

circumstances are not available in this case. No such duties '-"e Ms'-med E these w-so-ns. it is '-c in diam 1* n the appiication is ﬁied for seeking ﬁr 'tau. s 1 , workmen' for the penod' ' 2007-03, which would exp' ii"

April 2003 and it is also not in dispute that"the.:a_pj)iication4 to be considered for the said period [ Single Judge of this Court as date of the consideration of is not in employment, consideﬁnaf 1' status of 'protected wcr1c.m..an' also does 1.3-iithcut going into the nniol .11-I -gﬁaﬁ; l"\Vl".I'I"I§'i_{'_-!_'€?':"?...ﬁ"'IF, is acuu. 1.111» '"9 RS 1'

-run Ir. wwu these two jzereons Wofiﬁneto' _f§fh_t- I deﬁnitioniyof consetiuence wouid tollow. gems: 1;.i;'tct-_s¢, alien other circumstance, which is required in uJ«'

- .1 to the original' ' ' position mainly' ' on account of 1eft:sa1._'hy-the Management to recognize them as the members of ..th.e Union on sole ground that there cannot be an Union of it V_Sn;ie1visor and workmen. It is also not in dispute that, alter one V» .. inonth of the initiation of the enquiry against these two workmen. the Management considered the request of all other 1 1 work.m._e__ _e_ 1ev_rt:i_ng them to the original position and the

1., ¢_,- =..

confening status of the 'protected workman' insofar two persons are ooneemed.

25% he law, 53 3 5 » 1:'-'TA 3 5 3 5 3' establiahzueut, makes a conferring the status of woricinetai Management is to the the larger interest of industrial ltiie the Management that, if the statue of is conferred on these persons, it eﬂ'cet on the industrial peace. No two persons are made as __u ___ ren.r_ the of If disnute regar..,_ to e.ai'.i.a,.."-xzt. tlam is no ju-t*.'.ﬁca%r. A__ 1.1. _ ~ , for .» the to deny the request for I0 we __No prejudice wouid have been caused to the 'II'\ "Q Luggage-I-4-surf I nknaao I";-nu-nnq-u-scan':-as-|-.1-I in-I-I-nu}: I-us:-nnntlnactiu-I1:

WI 11.': flﬁasiilﬂut I-.MIu-"-"II-I ¥KJ §w1I&l W §ﬂI\JIluI-ls the 'issue as to whether these two of the Union uéorlunen or not, he should have consitiereri the nature of the 'work assigned to them, as to whether it is in addition or whether it is similar or whether it is really supervisory in nature. Except 2%'/"r ' «.7

-23.

the 7 key areas of memwneabilityr and acmtt:-.*..e...i..'»?. no ether ___.__ _1L:'I:4__ .. ..-_- _A--3 1 n mm y as ch, is asiﬁrned to these persorns mid as stated above, these tmn" " gs do not by themseives create any "_§iipeIVi"_." "sozy power, at the best. they have little better % existed earlier. which do indicate thet.»Vthey M ' ,}or1¢1vnnder :4 someone else and it is subject to their a}§prhvéi,. 'to d be done by these Pﬁrsons.

characterized as Supervisor.

31. The only issdeh 'case is that. two members of thg. recommended for conferring the workmen', are the eﬁect-oi' order of the termination or my in t_h_LI writ I--E!-1-:I:--l:(---'!l--9 'I'1I..e " n V' V .- - u o I Mr'!-r o * -=.._4 <='..°-°*=--."' ,1e..r'='1-1" wisrmer as we-.,u:r.-:".. m be .v , of teasons assigned above.

t the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order 21,'1.20Q_ ps_a_.___d .3; .h_ i_t g1:e.,1r_k.r1I.__.1I... i., qI...._h-_. In the c:.m'....."'*e*......-='=c.-s s'.*.-at:-.d '=-'-M-=-, two mcrﬁeu '-a.'.':e._,', use 1 mnaran and Qﬁarasimhamurthy come under the category

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court