Allahabad High Court
Hindalko Industries Ltd. Renukoot vs Priesiding Officer Labour Court U.P. ... on 16 August, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14757 of 2015 Petitioner :- Hindalko Industries Ltd. Renukoot Respondent :- Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. Mirzapur And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ritvik Upadhya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Srivastava,Gaurav Srivastava Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri V.K. Upadhyay learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ritvik Upadhyay learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava alongwith Sri Gaurav Srivastava learned counsel for respondent-workman and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Present writ petition has been filed by the employer against the award of the Labour Court, Mirzapur dated 07.10.2014 in Adjudication Case No. 228 of 2008 whereby the Labour Court has granted relief of reinstatement together with 50% back-wages to the respondent-workman. To the extent of award of 50% back-wages, the respondent-workman has filed Writ-C No. 4654 of 2016, which would be decided by a separate order of date.
3. The above award has arisen on the below quoted reference made to the Labour Court vide order dated 11.7.2008:-
"Kya Sewayojkon dwara apne sambandhit shramik/karmchari Sri Suresh Kumar Singh Putra Swa. Babua Singh padd Sahayak Prabandhak ki sewayein dinank 27.08.2008 se samaapt kiya jana uchit tatha/athwa vaidhanik hai? Yadi nahi, to sambandhit shramik/Karmchari kya hitlaabh/kshatipoorti/anutosh paane ka adhikari hai evam anya kis hitlaabh sahit?"
4. Undisputedly, the respondent-workman was appointed as Draughtsman at the petitioner-establishment on 02.5.1986. On 21.4.1989 he was made permanent in the construction division on the post of Draughtsman (Electrical). Thereafter, on 01.4.2002 he was promoted on the post of Assistant Manager (M-2 Grade). In the context of such employment, the respondent-workman claimed illegal retrenchment with effect from 27.8.2008.
5. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner set up a plea that the respondent-workman was not a workman as defined in U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In fact, the respondent-workman was primarily discharging managerial and/or supervisory/administrative functions. Besides oral evidence led by the petitioner-management, heavy reliance was placed on photo stat copies of two documents being "Job Analysis : Business Vertical" marked as Exhibit-E-1 and a letter dated 22.12.2005 written by the respondent-workman containing his request for re-evaluation of job analysis and job band, marked as Exhibit-E-2. By way of oral evidence, the management had proved the above two documents.
6. In the cross examination, it came out that the document Exhibit-E-1 did not bear the signature of the respondent-workman on the first six, out of total seven pages. However, at another place, during his elaborate cross examination, the respondent-workman did admit that the said document Exhibit-E-1 bore his signature, though the document was never sent for appraisal to the human resource department of the petitioner-establishment. With respect to Exhibit-E-2, being letter written by the respondent-workman dated 22.12.2005, though the respondent-workman initially sought to dispute reliability or evidenciary value of the same citing the document to be photo stat copy and nor the original, at the same time, during his further cross examination, he conceded that the said document had been written by him to the Vice President (HR) wherein he had described the nature of duties performed by him. Extract of the cross examination statement of the respondent-workman as is considered crucial for the decision in the present matter is quoted below:-
"... Pradarsh E-01 job analysis me mera hastakshar hai lekin ye H.R. department ko sameeksha ke liye nahi bheja gaya yah 07 panno mein hai. Pradarsh E-02 dinank 22.12.2005 mere dwara Vice President H.R. ko bheja gaya patra hai isme maine kiye jaane wale karyo ka ullekh hai. Jo department dwara H.R. vibhag mein nahi bheja gaya."
Here, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and others Vs. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha and another, 2015(144) FLR 177 to submit that the documentary evidence though in the form of photo copy document could not be discarded once it was not disputed, proved and marked as exhibit by the Labour Court.
7. In his oral testimony, the respondent-workman strenuously asserted that he had only performed the work of a Draughtsman i.e. prepare electrical drawings only. Relying on that, it was urged before the Labour Court and it has been stressed before this Court that the primary duties assigned to the respondent-workman were those of a workman. Mere, incidental assignment of other duties or incidental performance of other duties that may be described as managerial or supervisory would not have any impact on the respondent-workman's claim. Thus, reliance has been placed on two decisions of the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. M/s Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., 1984(48) FLR 417 and Arkal Govind Raj Rao Vs. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd., 1986 (52) FLR 19.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, there can be no dispute to the principle that must apply. Mere nomenclature is of no value. For the purposes of clarity, it may be noted, even if the workman is described as Director, he would not cease to enjoy the protection, benefit and remedies under the Act if the work performed by him remains that of a workman. There is also no dispute to the fact that the burden to establish performance of managerial and/or supervisory function would remain on the management. It is a special fact in the knowledge of that party and such fact is pressed to exclude the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Therefore, it would always be for the management to lead evidence such as may amount to shifting of the onus on the respondent-workman to rebut and lead other evidence as may then create situation where the management may be forced or required to lead any other evidence. Third, as to what would amount to a managerial function or a supervisory function is not to be determined applying straight jacket rule. Fourth, there is also no dispute that incidental performance of any function as may amount to any managerial or supervisory would not allow for a conclusion to arise that the respondent-workman in question ceased to be a workman under the Act.
9. Examined in that light, the statement of the respondent-workman remains ever relevant. Though he tried to wriggle out of the situation by initially stating that the documents Exhibit-E-1 and E-2 were photocopy documents and therefore not to be relied. At the same time, upon further cross-examination, he not only admitted to existence of the documents produced by the management as Exhibit-E-1 being job analysis but he admitted to have described the work performed by him as contained in Exhibit- E-2. Document Exhibit-E-2 leaves less to imagine as to the exact nature of duties performed by respondent. It reads:
"To, Vice President, Human Resources Department, Hindalco Industries Ltd.
Renukoot.
Ex.E-2 Through Proper Channel.
Subject: Request for re-evaluation of Job Analysis and job band. Sir,
With reference to my earlier representation for re-evaluation of job Analysis and job band, I wish to inform that some of the vital points were missed inadvertently. They are enumerated as below:
1. To complete planning, Scheduling and Budget within agreed time schedule and budget.
2. To complete basic engineering within given time schedule.
3. To complete detail engineering of brown field expansion, strictly within allotted time without affecting the production and maintaining the quality standards.
4.To procure Electrical Equipment/Materials keeping in view the optimization and providing continuous power.
5.Optimization of Inventory.
6. Motivating & inspiring managers fore learning WCM, TPM, 5S, ISO 9001, ISO 9002, ISO 14001, ISO 18001 in order to upgrade their practical knowledge to meet the future challenges.
7.Ensuring implementation of energy efficient devices, optimization of control system, productivity improvement and maintenance friendly.
All the jobs handled by me are routed directly through Manager (Project Elect) for design GM (Engg.) for execution and outside liasoning directly to SRVP (Project) - Therefore I request your kind self to please reconsider my job analysis and thereby job band.
Regards, Sd/ Illegible.
(S.K. Singh) Emp.Code 102203 Asst. Manager."
10. Read with the respondent's own statement (quoted above), it could not be disputed that the respondent was engaged in complete planning, scheduling and budgeting. It also cannot be disputed that the respondent workman was required to offer complete basic engineering besides procurement of electrical equipment and motivating, inspiring other managers in learning certain skill based programs and acquiring practical knowledge.
11. It is in that context that a further fact emerging from the perusal of the Exhibit E-1 acquires importance. With respect to work description planning, budgeting and scheduling, in column 4(1) of the job analysis, the respondent admitted following task responsibilities:
"To study system Forecast Preliminary budget Rough estimation of cost Recommend timeframe of budget Coordination with plant personal Justify for budget recommendation Support preparation of L2 & L3 Network"
Similarly, with respect to basic and detailed engineering, the respondent admitted to the following basic assignment:
"Analyze the Layout and G.A. Drgs.
Manage & Negotiate with user Participation in freezing the basic scheme and flow sheet Set the scheme and budget Analyze the equipment list Justify flow diagram Recommend equipment technical specifications Supports in preparation of detail engineering drawing BOQ, PR's GWO's etc Coordination with other sections Recommend safety compliance, environmental, statutory norms in design and at site. Appraise quality work in design & drawing with a target of no re-work"
Then, with respect to procurement and order finalization, the respondent admitted to further following task assignment:
"Analyze Purchase Requisition for all electrical requirements Coordination with Purchase department for release of Purchase order as per the requirement Expediting delivery of materials Reconcile Inventory"
Similarly, with respect to monitoring and progress of workman, the respondent admitted following task assignment:
"Adhering the monthly target Planning the work as per progress chart Support in progress"
Then, with respect to decision making, the respondent admitted to further following task assignment:
"Recommend vendor for equipment order Recommend contractor for Electrical works Factory approval test for transformer"
Then, in connection to cost control, the respondent admitted to the following basic assignment:
"To adhere the work as per budget Recommend alternative for cost reduction Recommend use of old/waste material Reconcile budget monthly"
12. In Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court recognized the lack of strict rule of evidence in proceedings before the Labour Court and further laid down admissibility of photocopy documents to be read as evidence once it was not disputed and marked as Exhibit in the proceedings before the Labour Court. Relevant to our context, paragraph 9 of that report reads as below:
"The Labour Court has, in the case at hand, placed reliance upon a Xerox copy of a certificate allegedly issued by an officer of the appellant Corporation stating that the respondent was in the employment of the appellant-Corporation as a Conductor between 3rd October, 1987 and 31st March, 1989. While it is true that the Xerox copy may not be evidence by itself specially when the respondent had stated that the original was with him, but had chosen not to produce the same yet the fact remains that the document was allowed to be marked at the trial and signature of the officer issuing the certificate by another officer who was examined by the appellant. Strict rules of evidence, it is fairly well-settled, are not applicable to the proceedings before the Labour Court. That being so the admission of the Xerox copy of the certificate, without any objection from the appellant-Corporation, cannot be faulted at this belated stage. When seen in the light of the assertion of the respondent, the certificate in question clearly supported the respondent's case that he was in the employment of the appellant-Corporation for the period mentioned above and had completed 240 days of continuous service. That being so, non-payment of retrenchment compensation was sufficient to render the termination illegal. Inasmuch as the Labour Court declared that to be so it committed no mistake nor was there any room for the High Court to interfere with the said finding especially when the findings could not be described as perverse or without any evidence. The High Court was also justified in directing deletion of the back wages from the award made by the Labour Court against which deletion, the respondent did not agitate either before the Division Bench by filing an appeal or before us."
13. Thus, the Labour Court has completely misread the evidence and reached perverse conclusion that the respondent did not admit the documents Exhibit-E-1 and E-2. Cross-examination statement of the workman, quoted above, clearly contains his admission to the correctness of those documents especially Exhibit - E-2 which is a document issued by the respondent containing his work assignments.
14. Then, a plain reading of those documents alongwith the oral testimony of the respondent workman clearly points in the direction that all work assignments made to the respondent were such as may be described as managerial leave alone supervisory. The workman, whether working in a workshop or on a desk may never be required or called upon to carry a study to do preliminary budgeting or recommend time frame of budget or justify budget recommendation or set the scheme and budget or analyse the equipment list or justify flow diagram or recommend equipment technical specifications or recommend safety compliance etc. or analyse purchase requisition for electrical equipments or to ensure adherence to manufacturing targets or plan work as per progress chart or recommend vender and contractor for electrical work etc or to adhere to work as per budget or recommend alternative cost reduction method.
15. These functions were the only functions performed by the respondent as were admitted to him by virtue of the contents of letter dated 12.12.2005 read with the job analysis, both submitted by him. The further statement that Exhibit E-1 may not have been dispatched to the Human Resource Department of the petitioner establishment lost its significance in face of specific admission made in the undisputed document being letter dated 22.12.2005. The contents of that letter are complete in itself and bring out the same conclusion as to the work performed by the respondent as have been noted above-reading the document Exhibit E-1.
16. Thus, whether on the strength of document Exhibit-E-1 or E-2 or both read together, the inescapable conclusion that had to be reached was of the respondent-workman having performed managerial function. In view of the discussion made above, the fact that the findings of the Labour Court are inadequate, do not commend the Court to remit the matter to make a fresh award in face of admission of the respondent-workman. That would be a futile exercise at the cost of precious time.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The award dated 07.10.2014 is quashed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 16.8.2022 Faraz