Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Procter and Gamble Health Limited (formerly Merck Ltd.), challenged an award dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Goa, in Reference No. IT/25/2014. The Tribunal had rejected the employer's preliminary objections that the respondent, Smt. Anupa Desai, was not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh was incompetent to raise the industrial dispute on her behalf. The employer argued that the Tribunal's finding on workman status was perverse, as it focused excessively on the respondent's brief service in the Stores Department (about 4 months) and ignored the nature of her earlier services. The High Court, after hearing both sides, noted that the employer did not press the issue of the union's competency. On the workman issue, the Court found that the Tribunal had considered the material holistically and applied the correct legal test regarding the nature of duties. The Court held that the finding was not perverse and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's award.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Workman Definition - Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Nature of Duties Test - The employer challenged the Tribunal's finding that the respondent was a workman, arguing that the Tribunal misconstrued the legal position and focused excessively on the respondent's short stint in the Stores Department. The High Court held that the Tribunal's finding was based on a holistic consideration of material and was not perverse, as the nature of duties performed by the respondent was primarily clerical/manual. (Paras 3-5)
B) Industrial Law - Maintainability of Reference - Section 2(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Competency of Union - The employer initially raised an objection regarding the incompetency of the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh to raise the dispute, but later did not press this issue. The High Court noted that in view of Section 2(A), there was no case to question the reference on that ground. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal's finding that the respondent is a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is perverse and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's award dated 28.02.2020 rejecting the employer's preliminary objections.
Law Points
- Definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Nature of duties test
- Perversity in findings
- Maintainability of reference under Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (07) 54
WRIT PETITION NO. 222 OF 2021
Mr. G. K. Sardessai with Ms. Madhuri Rao for Petitioner, Mr. Shivraj Gaonkar for Respondent
M/s. Procter and Gamble Health Limited (Formerly known as Merck Ltd.)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an award of the Industrial Tribunal rejecting employer's preliminary objections on maintainability of reference.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (employer) sought setting aside of the Tribunal's award and declaration that the reference is incompetent.
Filing Reason
Employer challenged the Tribunal's finding that the respondent is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Goa, by award dated 28.02.2020 in Reference No. IT/25/2014, rejected the employer's preliminary objections.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal's finding that the respondent is a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is perverse.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Tribunal misconstrued the legal position, focused excessively on the respondent's short stint in the Stores Department, and ignored the nature of her earlier services, relying on A. B. Manore v/s. W. N. C. Ltd.
Respondent argued that the Tribunal's finding was based on holistic consideration of material and was not perverse.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal's finding on the status of a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, based on the nature of duties performed, is a finding of fact. Unless perverse or based on no evidence, such finding is not liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The Tribunal had considered the material holistically and applied the correct legal test.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in this petition is to the award (part-I) dated 28.02.2020 made by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Government of Goa at Panaji (Tribunal) in Reference No. IT/25/2014 rejecting the petitioner's (employer's) preliminary objections to the maintainability of the reference.
Mr. Sardessai, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset and upon a query of this Court, made it clear that the employer was not pressing the issue of alleged incompetency of the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh to raise the industrial dispute on behalf of the respondent-employee.
Procedural History
The employer filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the award dated 28.02.2020 of the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Goa, which had rejected the employer's preliminary objections in Reference No. IT/25/2014. The High Court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on 05.07.2021.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 2(s), 2(A)
