Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972
T.C.C. Co-Op. Society Ltd. vs Labour Court on 13 September, 1988
4. Learned counsel rep resenting the appellant brought to our notice judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in T.C.C. Co-op. Society v. Labour Court, 1988(2) KLT 781, and contended that Secretary of a Cooperative Society is a workman under the Act. In that case, the employee as on the date of dismissal from service was not holding the post of Secretary. Some time past he functioned as Secretary. Then he went on long leave. On expiry of leave, he was admitted to duty as a Clerk. While so, disciplinary proceeding were initiated against him and was dismissed after holding domestic enquiry. Thereafter an industrial dispute was raised and the matter referred to Labour Court. On this set of facts the learned Judge observed:-
Shertallai Taluk Co-Op. Land Mortgage ... vs Deputy Labour Commissioner on 22 June, 1990
5. In the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 the word "employee" has been defined on almost identical terms as definition of 'workman' in the Industrial Disputes Act. Question as to whether Secretary of a Co-operative Society is entitled to the benefits under Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Shertattai Taluk Co-op. Land Mortgage Bank Ltd v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 1990(2) KLT 175. The Bench took the view that the expression "employee" makes it clear that if a person is employed mainly in a managerial or a administrative capacity, he cannot be regarded as an employee for the purpose of the said Act. That statement according to us, will help to get at the actual scope and effect of the definition of 'workman' in the I.D. Act as well Consequently, if the nature of the work of the Secretary is such that he was holding the post in a managerial capacity, then he cannot be considered as a workman . As seen from averments made by the appellant in the claim petition filed before the Labour Court, appellant was in full charge of the executive administration of the society. A person who is employed as the head of the administration of the society must be deemed to be discharging duties in a managerial capacity. Such a person cannot be regarded as a workman as defined in the Act.
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
1