MANAGEMENT OF M/S. SONEPAT COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus AJIT SINGH

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 105 · Decided: 14-02-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
MANAGEMENT OF MIS. SONEPAT COOPERATIVE 
SUGAR MILLS LTD. 
v. 
AJIT SINGH 
FEBRUARY 14, 2005 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Labour Laws : 
A 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 2(S)-Legal Assistant-Whether C 
is a workman-Held: Legal Assistant is not a workman in view of nature of 
his job as the same was not of stereotype like that of a clerk as the job 
involved creativity. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section I I-Principle of res judicata-
Industrial dispute-:lssue regarding jurisdiction of Industrial Court to entertain D 
the dispute-Writ petition-issue decided-Employer not preferred appeal 
against the judgment of Single Judge of High Court-But raised the issue in 
appeal before Supreme Court-Applicability of principle of res judicata in 
view of order of Single Judge having attained finality-Held: The principle 
belongs to domain of proceeding and would not apply when the decision E 
relates to jurisdiction of a Court-Industrial Disputes Act, I947. 
Words ad Phrases : 
"Workman"-Meaning of in the context of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
Respondent was appointed by the appellant in the post of Legal 
Assistant. The nature of his duties was to prepare written statements and 
notices, recording enquiry proceedings and representing the appellant in 
F 
all types of cases and conducting enquiries against workmen of the 
appellant Company. Pursuant to decision of abolition of the post by the 
appellant, services of the respondent were dispensed with. Respondent G 
raised industrial dispute. Labour Court held that the job of the respondent 
being of legal clerical nature, he would be workman within meaning of 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and he was liable to be reinstated with 
continuity of service with 50% back wages. Respondent as well as 
105 
H 
106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005) 2 S.C.R. 
A appellant filed Writ Petitions against the award. Single Judge of the High 
Court held that the respondent was a workman, but in view of the fact 
that he had been practicing as an advocate and was appointed as 
Additional District Attorney, awarded an amount calculated at 50% back 
wages by way of compensation in lieu of his reinstatement in service. 
B Respondent filed Letters Patent Appeal. Appellant did not prefer any 
appeal. Division Bench of High Court relying on *S.K. Verma 's case,. 
restored the award of reinstatement passed by Labour Court, but did not 
award full back wages. 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that in view of nature 
C of duties of the respondent, he could not have been held to be 'workman' 
u/s. 2(s) of the ACt; and that reliance on S.K. Verma 's case was misplaced 
as the same was held to have been rendered per in curium by Constitution 
Bench of this Court. 
Respondent contended that since no appeal was preferred by 
D appellant against order of Single Judge of High (;;ourt, it attained finality 
and by application of principle of res judicata the issue regarding 
respondent being workman or not could not be permitted to be raised 
again. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD : 1.1. Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 indicates 
that a person would come within the purview of the definition of workman 
if he: (i) is employed in any industry, and (ii) performs any manual, 
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work. The 
job of a clerk ordinarily implies stereotype work without power of control 
F or dignity or initiative ot creativeness. The question as to whether the 
employee has been performing a clerical work or not is required to be 
determined upon arriving at a finding as regard the dominant nature 
thereof. With a view to give effect. to the expression to do any manual, 
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work, the 
G job of the concerned employee must fall within one or the other category 
thereof. It would, therefore, not be. correct to say that merely because the 
employee had not been performi~g any managerial or s~pervisory duties 
ipso facto he would be a workman. It ,12-C-Fl 
Miss.A. Sundarambal v. dovefnment of Goa, Daman dnd Dieu ;,,d Ors., 
H [L988] 4 sec 42, relied on. 
..__ 
I 
L 
,-
--
MANAGEMENT OF MIS. SONEPAT CO-OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. v. AJIT SINGH 
J 07 
1.2. The Respondent had not been performing any stereotype job. A 
His job involved creativity. He not only used to render legal opinions on 
a subject but also used to draft pleadings on behalf of the Appellan

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