Dismissed

Vibhor v. the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -4, Agra and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2018WRIC/19972/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal's award dismissing a reference on jurisdictional grounds. The court held that a registered Advocate engaged as Legal Executive, performing pairvi and liaison duties, does not qualify as a 'Workman' and affirmed the Tribunal's decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no interference against the Industrial Tribunal's award regarding the definition of 'Workman'.

Vibhor Vs the Presiding Officer, Industrial… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19972 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Vibhor

¶4

Respondent :- The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -4, Agra And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramendra Asthana

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

The present petition is directed against the award dated 15.11.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Adjudication Case No.86 of 2009 (Vibhor v. M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.) with the assertion that the tribunal has erred in dismissing the reference made by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of 'Workman' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act, 1947').

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tribunal was not supposed to go by the designation of the petitioner rather it was required to examine the duties and responsibilities which have been assigned to the petitioner. As per contention of the learned counsel though the petitioner was assigned the duty to do pairvi in the suits and other legal proceedings by or against the respondent employer and to assist the lawyers/advocates already engaged but he had no discretion to decide as to which lawyer should be engaged in the Civil Court. The petitioner was thus doing only clerical job of handing over papers relating to the litigations to the lawyers representing the company. The duties and responsibility of the petitioner on the post of Legal Executive was only that of an unskilled Clerk. The tribunal has, therefore, erred in rejecting the reference solely on the ground that the petitioner was a registered Advocate in the U.P. Bar Council.

¶9

Reference is made to the paragraphs '32' and '96' of the judgment in Mukand Ltd. v. Mukand Staff & Officers' Association reported in (2004) 10 SCC 460 .

¶10

Before dealing with the merit of the above noted arguments, it is relevant to note that the reference to the abovenoted paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misplaced inasmuch as the said paragraphs pertain to the lis involved in that particular matter.

¶11

The reference to the said judgment, therefore, is of no relevance.

¶12

In so far as the definition of 'Workman' provided in the Act, 1947 is concerned, a careful reading of the same indicates that any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry who is hired or rewarded with remuneration to do any skilled, unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical job) can be included as a 'Workman' within the meaning of the Section 2(z) of the Act, 1947. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged on the post of Legal

¶13

Executive on 10.7.2007, after he completed LLB Degree and was registered as an Advocate with the Bar Council of U.P.

¶14

The qualification for appointment to the post of Legal Executive, as admitted to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was L.LB Degree. A person having LLB Degree who is competent to discharge the duties of a lawyer and was engaged to do pairvi of the cases on behalf of the company, and to coordinate with the lawyers engaged by the company, cannot be said to be engaged for doing manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work of skilled or unskilled nature. He cannot be said to be included within the meaning of the 'Workman' under the Act, 1947.

¶15

The findings returned by the Industrial Tribunal in this regard are perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and, as such, need no interference.

¶16

The writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed .

¶17

Order Date :- 3.7.2018 Jyotsana

Vibhor v. the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -4, Agra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vibhor v. the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -4, Agra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Waqf Khudabandtala Mosooma Madarsa Kasimul Uloom Gagalhedi Vs Senior Superintendent of Police ,Saharanpur and 2 Others

Smt. Satya Bahin Vs Raj Kumar Gupta and Another

Abulaish Ahmad Vs Mumtaj Ahmad and 30 Others

Sarmin Nazar Vs Zafar Ahmad Khan

Suresh Kumari Vs Smt. Bittan Devi

Smt. Jaggi Devi and Another Vs Mohd. Musharraf