Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd., is an engineering company with a manufacturing plant called 'Interio Division' at Shirwal, District Satara. The respondent, Shivkranti Kamgar Sanghatana, is a registered trade union representing workmen of the company. In 2015, the respondent raised a Charter of Demands seeking an increase in wages, benefits, and emoluments for the workmen. Conciliation proceedings failed, and the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Satara, as Reference I.T. No.4 of 2016. The union raised the dispute on behalf of about 44 employees whose names were listed in Annexure-A to the Statement of Claim. The petitioner applied for framing a preliminary issue, contending that the persons named in the Annexure were not 'workmen' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On 8th November 2017, the Industrial Tribunal framed a preliminary issue on whether the employees mentioned in Annexure-A are workmen. The respondent examined Mr. Sachin Desai as its only witness, and the petitioner examined eight witnesses. After considering the evidence, the Industrial Tribunal passed an order holding that 20 persons enlisted in the Annexure to the Statement of Claim are workmen under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the Tribunal's findings and noted that the Tribunal had considered the nature of duties, salary, and supervisory functions of each employee. The Court found that the Tribunal's conclusion that these employees performed manual, clerical, or supervisory work without exercising managerial functions was based on evidence and was not perverse. The High Court held that the scope of interference under Articles 226 and 227 is limited to cases where the finding is perverse or based on no evidence. Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate any such error, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the Industrial Tribunal's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Definition of Workman - Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Industrial Tribunal held that 20 persons named in the Annexure to the Statement of Claim are workmen under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The petitioner challenged this finding. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, examined whether the Tribunal's finding was perverse or based on no evidence. The Court found that the Tribunal had considered the nature of duties, salary, and supervisory functions of each employee and concluded that they performed manual, clerical, or supervisory work without exercising managerial functions. The High Court held that the finding was not perverse and did not warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 1-10) B) Industrial Law - Preliminary Issue - Status of Workmen - The Industrial Tribunal framed a preliminary issue as to whether the employees mentioned in Annexure-A to the Statement of Claim are workmen. After recording evidence, the Tribunal answered the issue in favor of the union. The High Court upheld this decision, noting that the Tribunal had correctly applied the test of 'workman' under Section 2(s) and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact. (Paras 6-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in holding that 20 persons enlisted in the Annexure to the Statement of Claim are 'workmen' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Tribunal's order that 20 persons are workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Law Points
- Definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Preliminary issue on status of workmen
- Scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
