Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Before the Labour Court, the Workmen/first respondent in each cases let in evidence by examining two persons and marked Exhibits. Though the Appellant Management did not examine any one, however they marked Exhibits in individual cases as referred to therein either by consent or during the course of examination of witnesses on the employees side. After analysing the facts and circumstances of each case and also the pleadings of the respective parties and the case laws referred to therein, the Labour Court found that the first respondent herein in each case is the workman within the meaning and definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and they entitled to maintain the industrial dispute and consequently, passed award individually in each case directing the Appellant Management to reinstate the first respondent in each case into service.

(vi) Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Oberoi Flight Services reported in AIR 2010 SC 502;
(vii) Talwara Co-operative Credit Service Society Ltd., vs. Sushil Kumar reported in 2008 (5) CTC 377; and
(viii) Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy vs. Radhey Shyam reported in (2008) 7 MLJ 94 (SC);

11. Per contra, Mr.V.Prakash, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent in all the Writ Appeals submitted as follows:-

(i) Re-appreciation of evidence is not possible in Writ proceedings. Even in respect of jurisdictional issue, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence, if the impugned awards passed are not perverse. As the finding given by the Labour Court in each cases is on the basis of legal evidence, the interference of this Court is not at all warranted that too under Article 226 of Constitution of India. In the counter statement filed before the Labour Court, the Management did not raise any plea that anybody had worked under the respective employees. The Management did not mark any document through any witness to negative the contention of these employees. No document showing the duties and responsibilities are filed and no pleadings were made to that effect. Name or designation is not a determining factor. An occasional duty/act cannot be construed to be the main duty/act. When the Labour Court addressed the issue with regard to duties and responsibilities and has given a factual finding on that aspect, this Court cannot go into it. The Appellant Management is an industrial establishment covered under Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, and hence retrenchment without application for permission or retrenchment made, when such permission was refused, is illegal. The Appellant is filing documents before this Court as if this Court is of the first instance. The Labour Court has to confine its examination and pass award only in respect of the documents filed before it. 
	Ex.M.1 		  Copy of Service Rules of the respondent-
				   Management
	Ex.M.2		 - Copy of the letter of the petitioner to the 						   respondent regarding deduction of contribution 					   from salary.

(ii) Even though such documents were marked on the side of the Management, the Labour Court has not made any discussion about those documents.

21(i) In the case of M.Sankaran, who is the first respondent in W.A.No.132 of 2012, the Labour Court has found that he is workman by observing that he does not have the power to appoint anybody or to suspend or take disciplinary action against any employee, to sanction leave or to enter into any contract on behalf on the company. Here again, the Labour Court relied on the deposition of WW-2 to come to such a conclusion. In this case, the Management has filed Exhibit M1 which reads as follows:-

26.From a perusal of the findings rendered by the Labour Court in each case with regard to the status of the ' employee' as 'workman', it is evident that the Labour Court has been carried over only by the contention of the respective employees that they have no power to appoint, dismiss or commence disciplinary action or to recommend sanction leave or enter into the contract on behalf of the Company and the evidence of W.W.2. In our considered view, these general observations made uniformly in respect of all the employees, without discussing individually in respect of each and every duty and responsibility assigned to the respective employees, will not satisfy the required exercise to be made by the Labour Court for arriving at a conclusion with regard to the status of an employee, more particularly when such a claim made by the employee is denied and disputed by the Management at all stages. The Labour Court has to necessarily go into each and every duty and responsibility of the employee and to give a finding as to which of such duties and responsibilities are predominant in character.