MUIR MILLS UNIT OF N.T.C. (U.P) LTD. versus SWAYAM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 1028 · Decided: 01-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MUIR MILLS UNIT OF N.T.C. (U.P) LTD. 
v. 
SWAY AM PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA AND ANR. 
DECEMBER ! , 2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
UP. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
Section 2 (z)-'-Workman-legal Assistant in a textile mill's litigation 
C department-Held-As his emoluments were over eight hundred rupees and 
duties totally supervisory in nature, he was not a workman since he fell 
under exception (iv) of section 2 (z) of the Act-It was more so as he was 
a professional. 
D 
Section 6 N-Retrenchment-Appointment on probationary basis period 
whereof was one year from date of joining-Termination of services on expiry 
of that period on ground of unsatisfactory performance-Requirement of 
notice before termination-Held-No notice was required as appointment 
1f' 
letter specified date for termination of service. 
E 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 2 (S)-Workman-Held-
Distinction has to be drawn between occupation and profession-Former is 
a principal activity earning regular wage or salary and latter is an occupation 
requiring extensive training, study, mastery of specialized knowledge, and 
usually has a professional association, ethical code and process of certification 
or licensing-Professio.nal can never be termed as a workman under any 
F law-Section 2 (z) UP. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
Labour law-Back wages-Award of-Held-without finding on gainful 
employment of employee and discontinuance of his service being illegal or 
in any manner stigmatic, award of backwages is perverse-it was more so 
G as the employee had been receiving interim wages for over fifteen years 
without having worked at all and without having established his 
unemployment. 
H 
Labour law-Reinstatement of workman during probation period-
Award of-Labour Court granting reinstatement giving employer right to 
1028 
.-. 
f . 
MUIR MILLS UNITOFN.T.C.(U.P)LTD.1•. SWAY AM PARAKASH SRIVASTAVA 
1029. 
take a decision on confirmation-High Court maintaining reinstatement A 
after expi1y of probation period-Correctness of-High Court was wrong-
Reinstatement rejected more so as the Mill of employer had been shut down 
and after lapse of over two decades, it was impracticable to reinstate the 
workman. 
Appellant, a textile mill, appointed respondent No. 1 as Legal Assistant B . 
on a probationary basis, period whereof was one year from the date of joining. 
On the expiry of probation period, he was informed that his performance was 
found to be unsatisfactory and his services were terminated. Thereupon he 
raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication by State to 
the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that he was a workman, his C 
termination was illegal and he had to be reinstated with back wages. However, 
it also observed that it did not have the power to examine the validity of the 
termination of the services of a probationer before the completion of probation 
period. Aggrieved by this, appellant preferred a writ petition before High 
Court. By an interim order, the High Court stayed the operation of the award 
of the Labour Court and directed the appellant to continue to pay his future D 
salary till further order. The appellants complied with the order of the High 
Court. The writ petition was dismissed by High Court holding that the order 
of the Labour Court was neither perverse nor it suffered from any error of 
law. Hence the present appeal. 
On the contentions of the parties following issues arose for decision E 
before the Court as to whether (i) legal assistant falls under the definition of 
workman under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ii) award of Labour 
Court was perverse as it directed the reinstatement with back wages of a 
probationer whose services had been dis<:ontinued upon completion of the 
probationary period on account of unsatisfactory work (iii) respondent No. 1 F 
having worked as a probationer for just a year had enjoyed over 15 years of 
wages without having worked for the same, even if the termination was illegal, 
they be treated as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: 1.1. The emoluments for the month of April, 1983 drawn by 
respondent No. 1 was Rs. 866.51 and the nature of duties of respondent No . 
1 were totally supervisory capacity and he was designated as Legal Assistant 
in the Mill's litigation department. So the respondent is not entitled to raise 
an Industrial Dispute. 11040-FI 
G 
H 
1030 
SUPREME COURT REPOR

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