LexARKAL GOVIND RAJ RAO versus CIBA GEIGY OF INDIA LTD., BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 2S:2 ARKAL GOVIND RAJ RAO v. CIBA GEIGY OF INDIA LTD., BOMBAY May 6, 1985 [D.A. DESAI, V. B \L\KRISHNA ERADI AND V. KHALID, JJ.) Induj/riaiDisputes Act 1947, Section 2(s.)-' Work1nan'-Who is-Tes/$ for determinati1n-A~cert3inment of primary, basic or dominant nature of duties. Labour Laws : Employee-Recruited as Stenographer-cum·Accountant- Promottd as Assistant-Designated 'Group Leader'-Whether employed in 'managerial' or 'supervisory' capacity. Words & Phrases : '}Vorkman'-Meaning of-Section 2(s.)-lndustrial Dispute Act 1947. The appellant joined as a Stenographer-cum-Accountant with the respondent company. Subsequently he was promoted as Assistant and conti- nued as such till October 1972 when his services were terminated, The Deputy Commissioner, Labour (Administration), referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The respondent~employer contended that the appellant was not a workman under the Act. Rejecting the reference, the Labour Court held that even though the appellant was doing clerical work, he was also doing supervisory and administ· rative work and other work like checking bank reconciliation etc. which was not clerical work and, therefore, he was not a workman but in fact an officer of the Covenanted Contractual Staff Cadre. The writ petition filed by the appeJlant was dismissed in /imine. The appellant appealed to this Court. A!lowing the appea1. HELD : 1. The appe!lant was a workman within the meaning of the expression 'workman' as defined in s. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, The difinition shows that the person concerned would not cease to be a workman if he performs some supervisory duties but he must be a person who must be engaged in a supervisory capacity. The Labour Court after rightly holding that primarily the duties of the appellant were of a clerical nature n1isled itself into an erroneous concluSion by drawing an impermissible inference and recorded a perverse finding. The award of the Labour Court declaring the appellant not ARKAL GO VIND ~. C. OilGY 283 to be a workman is quashed and set aside. The judgment of t e High Court also quashed and set aside and the matter remanded to the Labour Court for disposal according to law. (289 F; 286 H; 290 G-Hl 2. The test to be employed is what was the primary, basic or dominant nature of duties for which the person whose status is under enquiry was employed, A few extra duties would hardly be relevant to determine his status. The words like 'managerial' or •supervisory' have to be understood in their proper connotation and their mere use should not detract from the truth, [290 E-FJ 3. The comparison between an Assistant and a Clerk would not make the Assistant an officer. Difference in salary is hardly decisive, nor the designation of a clerk by itself is decisive. Focus bas to be on the nature of the duties performed and in this behalf the Labour Court itself was of the opinion that primarily for an practical purposes the duties performed by the appellant were of a clerical nature. [289 A-BJ 4. Where an employee bas multifarious duties and the question is raised whether he is a workman or not the Court must find out what are the primary and basic duties of the person concerned and if he is incidentally asked to do some other work, not necessarily in tune with the basic duties, these additional duties cannot change the character and status of the person concerned. [285 H; 286 Aj In the instant case, the Labour Court landed itself into an erroneous conclusion by drawing impermissible inference from the evidence and over looking the primary requireml!nt of the principal and subsidiary duties of the appellant. On appreciation of evidence, the Labour Court itself found that there is not much dispute that the appellant was doing all the work narrated by the sub-Manager of the Respondent-company and most of this work was just clerical work. It was also observed that all the duties performed by the appellant were clerical duties and that the appellant was performing these duties as a clerk, and that the duties of the appellant were more or less clerical and at best it can be said that they were performed by an efficient and experienced clerk. [286B; D-EJ 5. The appellant after bis promotion in 1966 as Assistant was designated as Group Leader. The Labour Court drew inference from this fact that the work of Group Leader is undoubtedly mainly su
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.