SHARAD KUMAR versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 1057 · Decided: 11-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
SHARAD KUMAR 
v. 
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 
APRIL 11, 2002 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 2(s), 2(K), JO and 12. 
Workman-Who is-Determination of-Nature of duties assigned-
Particular or multifarious-Held, ii has to be ascertained from the nature of 
duties assigned-Mere consideration of designation is not of much importance. 
A 
B 
c 
Reference of dispute to Board/(:ourts!Tribunal-Appropriate 
Government-Jurisdiction-Scope and extent of-Held, in order to determine D 
the principal duty and anci//iary duties performed by an employee to classifo 
himself as workman-Factual matters, materials including oral evidence 
required to be examined-Such matters could more appropriately be decided 
by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court than the appropriate/State Government. 
Appellant-employee was serving as 'Area Sales Executive'. Employer E 
terminated his services without holding any enquiry and without affording 
him opportunity to show cause in the matter. The Termination order was 
challenged and the matter was referred to the Concilliation Officer, who 
submitted a failure report. On the basis of the report, State Government 
declined to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court F 
for adjudication. Appellant filed Writ Petition which was dismissed by the 
High Court. Hence appeal before this Court. 
It was contended for the appellant that he was performing multifarious 
duties and the State Government going by the mere designation of the post 
held by him committed an error in declining to refer the dispute to the G 
Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court; and whether the appellant was workman 
or not involves inquiry into the facts and, therefore, the State Government 
could not finally decide the matter. 
It was contended for the respondent-employer that on the basis of H 
1057 
1058 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A material produced by the appellant before the Concilliation Officer, duties 
of the appellant did not fall into any of the categories of employee to qualify 
him as workman under Section 2(s) of the Act. 
It was contended for the respondent-State that the State Government/ 
appropriate Government is competent to take decision under Section 10(1) 
B of the Act whether a dispute raised was Industrial dispute or whether 
employee was workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. 
c 
The issue before this Court was whether the State Government has 
exercised its jurisdiction judiciously by rejecting the request of the appellant 
for a ~eference of dispute to Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. 
Allpwing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Both the State Government and the High Court had 
declined to refer the dispute relating to discharge/termination of the 
D appellant's service for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour 
Court because appellant is not _a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 
2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Order of refusal of reference of the 
dispute was passed by the respondent-State Government in exercise of its 
power under Secti~n 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Act. (1061-F-G] · 
E 
1.2. It has to be _taken as an accepted principle that in order to come 
~ithin the meaning of the expression 'workman' in Section 2(s) the person 
has to be discharging any one of the types of the works enumerated in the . 
first portion of the Section. If the person does not come within the first portion 
of the Section then it is not necessary to consider the further question whether 
he comes within any of the classes of workmen exclud~ under the latter part 
F of the Section. (1065-D) 
2.1. When an employee is assigned a particular type of duty and has 
been discharging the same till the date of the dispute then there may not be 
any difficulty in coming to a conclusion whether he is a workman within the 
G meaning of Section 2(s). If on ~he other hand the nature of duties discharged 
by the employees is multifarious then the further question that may arise for 
consideration is which of these duties is his principal duty and which are the 
ancilliary duties performed by him. While deciding the question, designation 
of the employee is not of much importance and certainly not conclusive in 
the matter as to whether or not he is a workman under Section 2(s) of the 
H Act. (1065-E, F, G] 
·- ; 
·~-
-
l 
SHARAD KUMAR v.GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 
1059 
2.2. The High Court w

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