Allowed

M/s Bombay Hospital and Research Center Near Saurabh Hotel v. Anil Gupta

Uttarakhand HC10 Nov 2021WPMS/519/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition under Article 227, allowed the petition and set aside the Labour Court's order. The court held that an employee drawing supervisory duties with a salary of Rs. 11,000 falls outside the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s).

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 03.01.2014 passed by the Labour Court is set aside.

M/s Bombay Hospital and Research Center… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition No. 519 (MS) of 2014

¶3

M/s Bombay Hospital

¶4

& Research Centre. .......….......Petitioner. -Versus-

¶5

Anil Gupta and another. ……...Respondents.

¶6

Present:

¶7

Shri Amar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State / respondent no. 2.

¶8

Sri S.K.Mishra, J.

¶9

Date of Hearing and Judgment: 10.11.2021

¶10

1. Shri Amar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State are present.

¶11

2. This is an old matter and despite sufficient service, none appears on behalf of the respondent no. 1, therefore, this Court has left with no other option except to proceed with the matter ex parte .

¶12

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

4. In this writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has assailed final order dated 03.01.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani, District Nainital in Misc. Dispute Case No. 12 of 2012. An application was filed by the respondent no. 1 - Anil Gupta under Section 33 C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for recovery of money due from employer. The application was allowed.

¶14

¶15

5. The applicant – respondent no. 1, herein, before the Labour Court prayed that he has not been paid two months’ salary; he is an employee of petitioner herein, and his monthly salary is Rs. 11,000/- only.

¶16

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the provision of Section 33 C of the Act, which provides for recovery of money due from the employer. SubSection 1 of Section 33 C provides that where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter VA or Chapter VA, the workman himself or any other person authorised by him in writing in this behalf, or, in the case of death of the workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied that any money is so due, it shall issue certificate for that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as arrear of land revenue. It is further provided that every such application shall be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employer. It is further provided that any such application may be entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year, if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within the said period.

¶17

7. Relying upon Section 2 (s) of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since respondent no. 1 was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 11,000/-, and was discharging supervisor functions, he did not fall under the definition of workman, as given in Section 2 (s) of the Act.

¶18

¶19

8. For the purpose of proper appreciation of the argument, the relevant portion of Section 2 (s) is quoted as under:

¶20

“2 (s) workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-

¶21

(iii) x x x

¶22

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.”

¶23

9. The respondent no. 1 was working as Marketing Executive, which is a supervisory post and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 11,000/-, therefore, he does not fall within the definition of workman and consequently, the application under Section 33 C of the Act is not maintainable. In that view of the matter, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 03.01.2014 passed by

¶24

¶25

the Labour Court is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

10. Urgent copy of this judgment be provided to the counsel for the parties, as per Rules. No order as to costs.

¶27

(S.K.Mishra)

¶28

Judge

¶29

SKS

M/s Bombay Hospital and Research Center Near Saurabh Hotel v. Anil Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Bombay Hospital and Research Center Near Saurabh Hotel v. Anil Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aizaj Ahmed Vs the State Transport Appellate Tribunal

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Basanti Devi Joshi

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kundan Singh

Siddharth Mehta Vs Sri Mayank Mehta

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Indu Gulati

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Kumari Surajkala