ANAND REGIONAL CO-OP. OIL SEEDSGROWERS UNION LTD versus SHAILESHKUMAR HARSHADBHAI SHAH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 370 · Decided: 08-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ANAND REGIONAL CO-OP. OIL SEEDSGROWERS UNION LTD. 
B 
V. 
SHAILESHKUMAR 1-IARSHADBHAI SHAH 
AUGUST 8, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.) 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947--Section 2(a)---Workman-Disciplinary 
proceedings initiated against employee for misconduct commilled by him with 
C other employees-Enquiry officer found the employee guilty-Punishment of 
dismissal from service imposed on the employee-Labour court and High 
Court held the employee to be a 'workmen' under the Act and ordered 
reinstatement with back wages--.Correctness of-Held, on facts, employee is 
a 'workman' -Labour Court did not assign any reason in its award about the 
perversity of findings of the Enquiry Officer-Labour Court cannot interfere 
D with quantum of punishment without giving sufficient reasons-Hence, in the 
interest of justice, benefit of voluntary retirement scheme was directed to be 
made available to the employee as made available to other similarly charged 
employees by the employer. 
Appellant initiated a disciplinary proceeding against respondent on 
E a complaint about serious misconduct committed by him along with other 
employees. Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty of alleged 
misconduct. Punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon him. 
On a reference before Labour Court, the respondent contended that he 
was not a 'workman' under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
F 1947 in view of the nature of duties performed by him. The Labour 
rejected the contention of the respondent and held that th.e quantum of 
punishment imposed on him was excessive. The Labour Court ordered 
reinstatement of the respondent with 25% back wages. Writ Petition and 
Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant were dismissed by High 
Court. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that respondent was 
not a 'workman' under the Act since he was not only a Head of a 
Department of the appellant-company but also had been supervising the 
works of the nine assistants working under him; and that the Labour 
Court exceeded its jurisdiction under section 11-A of the Act by interfering 
If 
370 
-
ANAND REG. CO-OPO[L SEEDSGROWERS UNION LTD."· SHAILESHKUMAR HARSHADBHAI SHAH J 7 J 
with the quantum of punishment. 
A 
The respondent contended that this Court should not interfere with 
the finding of fact that his is a workman; and that the jurisdiction of the 
Labour Court is plenary in nature and hence it could interfere with the 
quantum of punishment. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the court 
HELD: 1.1. For determining the question as to whether a person 
employed in an industry is a workman or not, only the nature of work 
performed by him but also terms of the appointment in the job performed 
B 
are relevant considerations. Supervision contemplates direction and C 
control. While determining the nature of the work performed by an 
employee, the essence of the matter should call for consideration. An undue 
importance need not be given for the designation of an employee or the 
name assigned to the class to which he belongs. What is needed to be asked 
is as to what are the primary duties he performs. For the said purpose, it D 
is necessary to prove that there were some persons working under him 
whose work is required to be supervised. Being in charge of the section 
alonee and that too it being a small one would not answer the test. A person 
indisputably carries on supervisory work if he has power of control or 
supervision in regard, to recruitment, promotion, etc. The work involves 
exercise of tact and independence. Judging by the said standard, the E 
respondent did not come within the purview of the exclusionary clause of 
the definition of workman. [377-A-C; F-H[ 
Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. v. Workman, (1970) 3 SCC 2248, relied 
on. 
Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court 
and Ors., [1996) 11 SCC 236, distinguished. 
F 
1.2. The allegations made against the respondent are serious in 
nature. The allegations were proved against him in the departmental 
proceedings. The findings of the Enquiry Officer was based not only on G 
the basis of the statement made by the complainant but also by the 
statements of other witnesses besides other evidences. The Labour Court, 
in its award did not assign any reason as to how the findings of the Enquiry 
Officer were perverse. The Labour Court did not advert to the question 
which arose for consideration as to whether 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.