Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Damodar Mangueshkar, represented by the Cidade de Goa Hotel Employees Union, challenged the award dated 26.05.2010 passed by the Labour Court-II, Government of Goa at Panaji in Case No. Ref. IT/92/07. The Labour Court had held that the petitioner was not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and consequently dismissed the reference as not maintainable. The petitioner contended that the Labour Court was not justified in deciding only the preliminary objection raised by the employer and was duty-bound to decide all issues. It was further argued that the impugned award was vitiated by perversity and errors apparent on the face of the record, as the Labour Court ignored detailed pleadings, evidence regarding the nature of duties discharged by the petitioner, and admissions made by Zarine Lobo, the Human Resources Executive of the employer. The petitioner relied on Food Corporation of India Workers' Union v. Food Corporation of India, (1996) 9 SCC 439, Workmen v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., and Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation to support the contention that mere nomenclature as 'accounts supervisor' is not conclusive and that the overwhelming evidence established the petitioner as a workman. The respondents, though served, did not appear. The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel, found merit in the submissions. The court held that the Labour Court erred in deciding only the preliminary issue and that the award was perverse as it ignored material evidence. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the impugned award and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication on all issues in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Workman Definition - Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Preliminary Issue - The Labour Court erred in deciding only the preliminary objection regarding the petitioner's status as a workman without considering all issues. The court held that the Labour Court was duty-bound to decide all issues arising in the matter. (Paras 2-3)
B) Industrial Law - Perversity - Ignoring Evidence - The impugned award was vitiated by perversity as the Labour Court ignored detailed pleadings, evidence about the nature of duties, and admissions in the evidence of the employer's Human Resources Executive. The court held that mere nomenclature as 'accounts supervisor' is not conclusive. (Paras 4-5)
C) Industrial Law - Workman Status - Nature of Duties - The court relied on Food Corporation of India Workers' Union v. Food Corporation of India, (1996) 9 SCC 439, Workmen v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., and Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation to hold that the overwhelming evidence on record established the petitioner as a workman. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court was justified in deciding only the preliminary objection regarding the status of the petitioner as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the impugned award is vitiated by perversity and errors apparent on the face of the record.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned award dated 26.05.2010 and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication on all issues in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Definition of workman under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Duty of Labour Court to decide all issues
- Perversity in ignoring evidence
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (02) 89
WRIT PETITION NO.804 OF 2010
Mr. Shivraj Gaonkar for the Petitioner
Shri Damodar Mangueshkar, Represented by Cidade de Goa Hotel Employees Union
M/s Cidade de Goa, M/s Fomento Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Govt. of Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court which held that the petitioner was not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned award and a direction to the Labour Court to decide all issues on merits.
Filing Reason
The Labour Court decided only the preliminary objection regarding the petitioner's status as a workman and dismissed the reference without considering the merits.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court-II, Government of Goa at Panaji passed the award dated 26.05.2010 in Case No. Ref. IT/92/07 holding that the petitioner was not a workman.
Issues
Whether the Labour Court was justified in deciding only the preliminary objection regarding the status of the petitioner as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the impugned award is vitiated by perversity and errors apparent on the face of the record.
Submissions/Arguments
The Labour Court was duty-bound to decide all issues, not just the preliminary objection.
The impugned award is perverse as it ignored detailed pleadings, evidence about the nature of duties, and admissions in the evidence of the employer's Human Resources Executive.
Mere nomenclature as 'accounts supervisor' is not conclusive; the overwhelming evidence established the petitioner as a workman.
Ratio Decidendi
The Labour Court erred in deciding only the preliminary objection regarding the status of the workman without considering all issues. The award was perverse as it ignored material evidence, including admissions and the nature of duties. Mere nomenclature is not conclusive; the court must examine the actual duties to determine if a person is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in this petition is to the award dated 26.05.2010 made by the Labour Court-II, Government of Goa at Panaji in Case No. Ref. IT/92/07 holding that the petitioner herein was not a workman as defined in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (said Act), and therefore, the reference was not maintainable.
Mr. Gaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset pointed out that the Labour Court was not justified in deciding only the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents (employer). He submits that the Labour Court in the matter of this nature, was duty-bound to decide all the issues which arose in the matter.
He submits that mere nomenclature as 'accounts supervisor' can never be conclusive in determining whether the petitioner was indeed a workman or not. He submits that detailed pleadings as also evidence about the nature of duties discharged by the petitioner have been completely ignored by the Labour Court.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a reference before the Labour Court-II, Government of Goa at Panaji (Case No. Ref. IT/92/07). The Labour Court passed an award on 26.05.2010 holding that the petitioner was not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and dismissed the reference. The petitioner challenged this award by filing Writ Petition No.804 of 2010 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The High Court heard the petition on 04.02.2021 and pronounced judgment on 05.02.2021.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(s)
