Petitioner challenged an order refusing referral of industrial dispute, alleging authority misdirected itself by adjudicating his status as manager instead of workman before the dispute was referred to a tribunal.
Impugned order dated 01.12.2017 quashed; matter remanded to competent authority for fresh consideration within eight weeks.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4780 of 2018
======================================================
Rahul Muzaffarpuri, son of Shri Uma Shankar Prasad Sharma, resident of House of Anil Sharma, Vidhi Nagar, Near Sonu Maket, Varun Colony, Gola Road, P.S.- Rupaspur, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
... ... Respondents
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. S.D Sanjay Addl. Soc. Gen. For the Respondent No. 8: Mr. S.N. Choubey, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Lal, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-07-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Union of India and learned counsel for the Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 01.12.2017, whereby and whereunder the authority has refused to refer the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.4780 of 2018 dt.05-07-2019 2/3
for adjudication on the ground that the disputant was engaged in the capacity of Sales Manger, as such he cannot be said to be a workman with the definition of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The petitioner was appointed as Trainee Sales Team Manager, but he has claimed that he is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Conciliation was held, but it could not be materialized, resulting into the failure report, ultimately refused to refer the industrial dispute being Sales Manager, is under challenge before this Court.
The authority while exercising the power of conciliation and consideration to refer the dispute raised, exercises administrative function and cannot exercise the power of adjudication and as such, cannot adjudicate the status of an employee whether he is a workman or not a workman. Basically, this issue can only be thrashed out by adjudicatory process, would be gone into by the adjudicating authority i.e. the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act and while refusing to refer the industrial dispute, appropriate Government or the authority cannot embark upon adjudicatory mechanism and should not have adjudicated the status of an employee.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4780 of 2018 dt.05-07-2019 3/3
In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that that authority has misdirected himself in usurping the power of quasi judicial body and his finding on misdirection.
In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 01.12.2017 is not sustainable, accordingly, the same is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh and take decision in accordance with law within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, the respondents-management will be at liberty to raise all the points as available to it before the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed to the above extent.
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
pawan/-
| AFR/NAFR | N.A.F.R. |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N/A. |
| Uploading Date | 09.07.2019 |
| Transmission Date |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the authority below acted ultra vires by adjudicating the status of the employee as a sales manager rather than a workman while refusing to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication.
Whether the authority misdirected itself in usurping powers of a quasi-judicial body under the Industrial Disputes Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rahul Muzaffarpuri
Union of India
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Shivaji Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
