LexDIV. MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus A. SANKARALINGAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~1 ' .. [2008] 14 S.C.R. 139 r DIV. MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. A v. A.SANKARALINGAM (Civil Appeal No. 4445 of 2006) OCTOBER 3, 2008 "'· B [TARU_N CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, ·JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - ss. 2(s), 258 and 25F - Sweeper-cum-Water Carrier appointed allegedly on a part time basis - Working till 5 p.m. in office for three years continu- c " ously on monthly wages under control and supervision o( employer - Whether workman u/s. 2(s) - Benefit of ss. 258 and 25F - Entitlement of- Held: Such worker is a wor~man in terms of s. 2(s) and entitled to the benefit of ss. 258 and 25F. Respondent was appointed with the ~ppellant on'· D 2.01.1986 as a Sweeper-cum-Water Carrier on monthly wages. He sought regularization of services but his ser- vices were terminated from 15.03.1989. Respondent ap- proached the appropriate Government. On failure of con- ciliation effort, matter was referred to Industrial Tribunal. E The Tribunal held that as the responqent worked as a part- time employee only for one or two hours a day on montflly wages and he could work elsewhere also, he was not a workman within the meaning ofs~ "2(s}'of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Single Judge of High Co.urt held F that the workman had worked from 1986-1989; that.as per . - the oral evidence, he had worked in the office till 5' O cloc.k; · and that the retrenchment was bad in law. It set aside the order of the trihunal and directed that the workman be re- instated with full back wages. The Division Bench upheld G the order. Hence the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 A bare perusal of definition of 'workman' 139 H DIV. MANAGER, NEW INDIAASSURANCE CO. LTD. 141 v. A.SANKARALINGAM. - • consideration of the oral evidence as well as on the A documentary record, and on admissions made in evidence given categorical findings of fact that the respondent had worked till about 5 p.m. every day and had worked con- tinuously for more than 3 years from 2nd January 1986 to 15th March 1989. [Paras 5, 9 and 12] [151-A; 145-B; 149-C] B CASE LAW REFERENCE f- 2007 (13) SCALE 499 Held inapplicable. Para 8 1989 LAB l.C. 1650 Held inapplicable. Para 8 _ (1974) 3 sec 498 Relied on. Para 10' c 1961 (3) SCR 161 Referred to. Para 11' ~ I. 1962 (Suppl.) (1) SCR 249 Referred to. Para 11 1997 (1) LLJ 788 Approved. Para 13 2001 LAB l.C. 2127 Approved. Para 14 D / 2001-11-LLJ 45 Approved. Para 15 ..... I 132 (2006) DLT 192 Approved. Para 15 - 1988 Lab l.C. 505 Approved. Para 15 1990 Lab l.C. 1451 Approved. Para 15 E CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4445 ~ of 2006 From the final Judgment and Order dated 7.4.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, in Writ Appeal No: 432 of., F -f- 2006 and WAMP No. 922 of 2006 Atul Nanda, Rameeza Hakeem and Sandeep Bajaj (for M/s. Law Associates & Co.) for the Appellant. I S. Guru Krishna Kumar and Srikala Gurukrishna Kumar G ..... for the Respondent. .. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.1. The facts leading to this ap_- peal are as under: H 142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A 2. The respondent-writ petitioner (hereinafter called the 'workman') was appointed on 2nd January 1986 as a Sweeper- cum.;.Water Carrier in the Office of the Divisional Manager, New ·India Assurance Company Ltd., Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli (~espondent No.2 in the High Court) and herein callee! the "em- 8 player", on a monthly wage of Rs.130/-. He thereafter made a request that his services be regularized but was on the con- trary, informed orally that he was not required to work with effect from 15th March 1989. He thereupon sought the intervention of the appropriate Government praying for his reinstatement, but conciliation efforts having failed, the matter was referred to the c Industrial Tribunal for decision. The Tribunal in its award dated 1 Oth September 1998 held that the claimant before it, was·not a · workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Dis- _putes Act, 194 7 (herei_nafter called the "Act") as he had worked ~ 0 only as a part-time employee and that too on an ad-hoc basis . . Th~ Tribunal also observed that as the duty hours of the work- maQ were only one or two hours a day for which he was paid a sum ofRs.150/-p.m., and as he was entitled to work elsewhere ,, as well, revealed his status as such.,The workman challe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.