LexHUSSAN MITHU MHASVADKAR versus BOMBAY IRON AND STEEL LABOUR BOARD AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A HUSSAN MITHU MHASV ADKAR v. BOMBAY IRON AND STEEL LABOUR BOARD AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 7, 2001 B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] c Labour Laws : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Sections 20), 2 (s) & JO (I) Termination of service-Reference.filed before Labour Court-Status as workman-Section 20)-Scope of-Held reference not maintainable-Board not an industry and appellant not workman-High Court rejected the D appeal-On appeal held: No error in the decision of the High Court that larger issue as to whether Respondent Board is an industry should have been entertained for consideration only in case where it is absolutely necessary when the claim could have been disposed of otherwise. Appellant was working as an Inspector in the Bombay Iron and Steel E Labour Board and placed on probation for 3 months but his services were terminated after saving the Board for 21 months. The appellant claimed that his duties were of supervision, detection of defaulter and work of clerical nature. On dispute, a reference was made to the Labour Court u/s.10(1) and Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The reference was rejected as F not maintainable on the ground that the Board was not an Industry and therefore appellant was no't a workman and he could not claim any deemed confirmation. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court by filing writ petition and thereafter a writ appeal, but was not successful. Hence this appeal. The issues before this court are (a) whether Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board is an industry within the meaning of Section 20) of the G Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and (b) whether the appellant, who was working as Inspector is a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. H It was contended on behalf of appellant that it would be futile for anyone either to contend or countenance the plea that the Respondent Board was not an Industry so as to attract the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and 626 - HUSSAN MITHU MHASVADKAR' BOMBAY IRON AND STEEL LABOUR BOARD 627 accordingly the High Court should have held in favour of the appellant and A remitted the matter to Labour Court for an adjudication on merits of the claim of the appellant as workman since Labour Court in its finding did not consider the same solely on the ground that that appellant was not employed in an Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act It was contended on behalf of the respondents that since the Labour Court and the High Court had thoroughly examined the facts correctly as per relevant principles of law and rejected the claim of the appellant for cogent and convincing reasons, no interference is called for in this appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B c HELD : I.I. Where Labour Court as well as High Court entertained doubts about the status of appellant as workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act instead of adjudicating on the issue as to whether the respondent-Board is an industry or not, ought to have D refrained from doing so and taken up the question about the status of the appellant for adjudicating at the threshold and if only the finding recorded was against the appellant refrained from adjudicating on the larger issue. The larger issue should have been entertained in case where it is absolutely necessary and not when the claim before it could have been disposed of otherwise. Accordingly, this Court has to deal with the status of the appellant E as.to whether he is a workman or not in the first instance. Further in order to examine, what constitutes an industry as per Section 2(j) of the Act, the principle has been laid down authoritatively in several decisions of the Court including the decision of this Court in Bangalore Water Supply case. [630-E, F, G; 631-A, Bl F Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, etc. v. A. Rajappa and Ors. etc., [1978] 2 SCC 213, relied on. 1.2. No doubt in deciding about the status of an employee his designation alone cannot be said to be decisive and what really should go into consideration G is the nature of duties and the powers conferred upon as well as function assigned to him. It is the predominant nature of the services that will be the true and proper test, the powers of Inspector and duties and obligation cast upon him as such are identical and also on par with a prosecuting agency in the public law field. Hence appe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.