LexNATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LIMITED versus SHRI SHRI KISHAN BHAGERIA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-r- NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LIMITED v. A SHRI SHRI KISHAN BHAGERIA & OTHERS NOVEMBER 11, 1987 [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, .JJ.) B Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(s)-'Workman'-who is-Internal Auditor in Company-Not doing supervisory work-Only checking up on behalf of employer-No independent authority or right to take decision-Such employee held 'workman'-l.D. Act not repugnant to Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act 1958. c Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958: Sec- tions 28A and 37-Whether repugnant to Industrial Disputes Act 1947-Employee' s petition against dismissal-Dismissed on ground of limitation-Relief through petition under l.D. Act 1947-Whether D barred. The 1st respondent was working in the appellant-company as ao Internal Auditor on a monthly salary of Rs.1186-60P per month. The appellant alleged that the respondent started absenting himself from 28th January, 1978 aod as such was not entitled to any salary for aoy period beyond the said date. The respondent was thereaf!er placed under suspension on 30th March, 1978. On 4th May, 1978 the respondent filed an application under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming a total sum of Rs.4746-40p on account of salary from !st January, 1978 to 30th April, 1978. The appellant objected on the ground that the respondent was not a 'workman'. On 9th November, 1978 there was an order dismissing the respondent from service. E F On 2nd January, 1979 the respondent filed an application under section 28A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments G Act, 1958 which was dismissed on 31st July, 1979 on the ground of limitation. On the 2nd August, 1979 the Labour Court held that the respon- dent was doing clerical duties and as such was a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act and he was entitled to Rs.2060-98p as salary H 985 A B c D 986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] I S.C.R. from 9th March, 1978 to 30th April, 1978. There was also a reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 8th August, 1960 arising out of the dismissal of the respondent. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging this order. All the aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by a Single Judge of the High Court on 16th March, 1982 holding that the respondent was not a 'workman'. A Division Bench of the High Court, however reversed the afore- said judgment and held that the respondent was a 'workman'. The two j writ petitions of the appellant were dismissed, while the writ petition of the respondent was allowed. 1 Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the appellant appealed to this Court. On the questions: (1) whether the respondent was a 'workman' or not within the definition of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and (2) whether the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 would apply. Dismissing the appeals, HELD: l.(a) Whether a person was performing supervisory or managerial work is a question of fact. One must, therefore, look into Y E the main work and that must be found out from the main duties. A supervisor has to take some kind of decision on behalf of the company. One who was reporting merely as to the affairs of the com- pany and making assessment for the purpose of reporting is not supervisor. [992A-B] p (b) There is no controversy in the instant case, that the respon- dent is not employed in any managerial or administrative capacity. Distribution of work may easily be the work of a manager or an administrator but "checking" the work so distributed or "keeping an eye" over it is certainly supervision. A manager or administrator's work may easily include superoision but that does not mean that G supervision is the only function of a manager or an administrator. Where there is a power of assigning duties and distribution of work there is supervision. [990C, 99IA-B, 99!DI Mcleod and Co. v. Sixth Industrial Tribunal West Bengal and others, A.I.R. 1958 Calcutta 273; All India Reserve Bank Employees H Association v. Reserve Bank of India, [1966] 1 S.C.R. 25; Llyods Bank - NATIONAL ENGG. INDUSTRIES v. S.K. BHAGERIA 987 Ltd. v. Pannalal Gupta, [1961] 1 L.L.J. 18; Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distribution Co. of India. v. Burmah Shell Management Staff As- A sociation & Ors. [1971] 2 S.C.R. 758; The Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. R.S. Bhati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.