A management petition challenging an interim order of the Labour Court that found the respondent, designated as a supervisor, to be a workman for jurisdictional purposes. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the finding was not perverse.
The original petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 21ST ASWINA, 1943
OP(LC) NO. 14 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. 44/2019 IN ID 48/2018 OF LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM,
PETITIONER/APPLICANT/MANAGEMENT:
GENERAL SECRETARY, NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY N.S.S.HEAD OFFICE,
PERUNNA, CHANGANASSERY P.O, KOTTAYAM-686101.
BY
ADV.R.T.PRADEEP ADV.M.BINDUDAS ADV.K.C.HARISH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/WORKMAN:
C.S.PREMCHAND KRISHNAKRIPA, HILLVIEW GARDEN, THAZHAVARAM, KATTUVILA, PEYAD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695573.
BY ADV K.MOHANAKUMAR (POOJAPPURA)
THIS OP (LABOUR COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.10.2021, THE COURT ON 13.10.2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-:2:-
O.P.(LC) No.14/21
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------------O.P.(LC) No.14 of 2021
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2021
JUDGMENT
The Management in an industrial dispute has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order issued by the Labour Court on the question of maintainability. By the impugned order, the Labour Court found that the respondent is a workman as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act').
O.P.(LC) No.14/21
-:3:-
guilty and imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service.
O.P.(LC) No.14/21
-:4:-
order of the Labour Court was totally perverse as the same failed to appreciate the very admission of the worker himself that he was appointed as a supervisor with the management. It was also contended that the Labour Court failed to appreciate that there were no subordinates under the workman and that his principal duty was to supervise the works done by the contractors and to prepare the measurement book. It was further argued that the court had failed to consider the functions attributed to the workman especially as Grade-II Supervisor and that, the contractors were at the mercy of the respondent thereby giving him supervisory control over the contractor and employees of the contractor apart from the fact that the said post was an entry cadre post of the engineering department and not a lower category post.
O.P.(LC) No.14/21 -:5:-
Court. It was further pointed out that though the respondent was given the designation as supervisor, he had no supervisory work nor managerial work and the only work done by the respondent was to take physical measurements.
Iron & Steel Labour Board and Another [(2001) 7 SCC 394], it was
O.P.(LC) No.14/21
-:6:-
held that what determines whether a person is a workman or not are the nature of duties of the employee, the powers and functions bestowed upon him and not just the designation alone. Further, in the decision in T.Prem Sagar v. M/s.Standard-Vacuum Oil Company, Madras and Others (AIR 1965 SC 111), the Supreme Court had laid down the guidelines for identifying whether an employee is a workman or not.
-:7:-
O.P.(LC) No.14/21
proper appreciation of the evidence as well as the law. Therefore, I
find no reason to interfere with Ext.P6 order.
This original petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE
vps
-:8:-
O.P.(LC) No.14/21
APPENDIX OF OP(LC) 14/2021
PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE I.D.NO.48/2018 DATED 23.7.2018 ON THE FILE OF LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2017 BY WHICH RESPONDENT WAS DISMISSED FROM SERVICE. WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 5.12.2018 BY PETITIONER IN I.D. NO.48/2018 BEFORE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.44/2019 IN I,.D.NO.48/2018 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 25.03.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN.I.A. NO.44/2019 IN I.D.NO.48/2018 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 3.7.2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2021 IN I.A.NO.44/2019 IN I.D.NO.48/2018 OF THE LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER LETTER DTD.31/08/2021 PRODUCED BEFORE THE LABOUT COURT EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE RESPONDENT IN THE LABOUR COURT EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY IN LABOUR COURT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 227 powers warrant interference with the Labour Court's preliminary finding that the respondent is a workman.
Whether the Labour Court's finding that a designated supervisor is a workman is perverse or based on misconceived reasons.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hussan Mithu MhasvadkarReferred¶40
(2001) 7 SCC 394 · Who else cites this
T.Prem SagarReferred¶43
AIR 1965 SC 111 · Who else cites this
St.Thomas Mission HospitalReferred¶45
2007 (2) KLT 415
3 provisions across 3 enactments
General Secretary, Nair Service Society
C.S. Premchand Krishnakripa
Becu Kurian Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
