MANAGEMENT OF HEAVY ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD. versus PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 92 · Decided: 29-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MANAGEMENT OF HEAVY ENGINEERING 
CORPORATION LTD. 
v. 
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 29, 1996 
[J.S. VERMA AND B.N.-KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Labour Law: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s) and 25-F. 
Workman-Termination of Service-Doctor appointed on adhoc 
basis-Doctor had, under him male nurse, nursing attendant, sweeper and 
ambulance driver-Such a doctor worked in shifts-Services of doctor 
terminated on completion of the term of his ad-hoc appointment without 
D complying with S.25-F-Held: although doctor worked in shifts, he was 
working in a supervisory capacity-Hence, not a workman under S. 2(s)-
Therefore, termination of Service of doctor without complying with s.25-F 
ivas valid. 
The appellant-Corporation had appointed the respondent as a 
E Doctor on an adhoc basis for a period of six months. The respondent 
was posted at the First Aid Post being maintained by the appellant-
Corporation and he used to work in shifts. When the respondent was 
in shift he was the sole person in-charge of the first aid post. The 
respondent had, under him male nurse, nursing attendant, sweeper 
F and ambulance driver. The appellant-Corporation terminated the 
services t;>f the respondent on completion of the term of his ad-hoc 
appointment. Being aggrieved the respondent raised an industrial 
dispute before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 on the ground that the appellant had terminated the services of 
the respondent without complying with Section 25-F of the Act and, 
G therefore, his termination was bad in Law. The Labour Court allowed 
the petition and ordered reinstatement of the respondent with full 
back wages. The High Court upheld the decision of the Labour Court. 
Being aggrieved the appellant-Corporation preferred the present 
appeal. 
H 
On behalf of the appellant--Corporation it was contended that 
92 
MANAGEMENT OF HEAVY ENGG. CORPN. LTD. 1•. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT 9 3 
the respondent was working in a supervisory capacity and, therefore, A 
he could not be regarded as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act; 
and that Section 25-F of the Act was not applicable in the case of the , 
respondent. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1. During the time when the respondent was in the shift 
he was the sole person in-charge of the first aid post. The respondent 
had, under him male nurse, nursing attendant, sweeper and 
ambulance driver who would naturally be taking directions and orders 
from the in-charge of the first aid post. These persons obviously could 
not act on their own and had to function in the manner as directed C 
by the respondent whenever he was on duty. They were under the 
control and supervision of the respondent. When a doctor, like the 
respondent, discharges his duties of attending to the patients and, in 
addition thereto supervises the work of the persons subordinate to 
him, the only possible conclusion which can be arrived at is that the 
respondent cannot be held to be regarded as a workman under Section 
2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the termination of 
D 
the services of the respondent without complying with Section 25-F 
'of the Act was valid. [97-E-H, 98-A] 
Dr. Surendra Kumar Shukla v. Union of India and Ors., (1986) Lab. E 
l.C. 1516, overruled. 
The Bengal United Tea Co. Ltd. v. Ram Labhaya, Presiding officer, 
Industrial Tribunal, Assam and Ors., AIR (1961) Assam 30, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 921 of F 
1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.9.86 of the Patna High Court 
in C.W.J. C. No. 1281of1986 (R) 
G.L. Sanghi and R.K. Agnihotri for the Appellant. 
S.B. Upadhyay for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by: 
G 
H 
94 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
KIRPAL J. The appellant had appointed respondent no. 2 as a doctor 
in the General Duty Medical Officer Grade-II on 17th May, 1978. The 
appointment was on ad-hoc basis fot a period of six months with effect 
from 18th May, 1978. 
Along with respondent no. 2 three other doctors were similarly 
B appointed. All the four doctors were posted at the First Aid Posts which 
are being maintained by the appellant corporation for providing emergency 
medical services in case of accidents etc. during all the shifrs. This ad-hoc 
appointment to the temporary post was first extended for a period of three 
months by order dated 30th November, 1978. Second extension was granted 
for

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