Case Note & Summary
The present petition was filed by Fatmabai Binte Nakhuda Mohammed Ameen Rogay Religious and Charitable Trust and others challenging an order dated 14.7.2005 passed by the Industrial Court in MRTU Complaint No. 1104 of 2001. By the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to pay legal dues of Rs.2,40,426/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 1.4.1999 till realisation and costs of Rs.1000/- to the respondent workman. The petitioner contended that the respondent was not a workman and that the complaint was not maintainable, arguing that the respondent was appointed as Secretary under Clause 15 of the Deed of Settlement and performed managerial functions such as convening meetings, recording minutes, and filing applications before the Charity Commissioner. The respondent, in his evidence, deposed that he entered service as Secretary on a salary of Rs.150/-, and his duties included conveying meetings, recording minutes, writing proceedings, keeping accounts, typing, and collecting rent from tenants. He stated that his duty hours were 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., and he often worked beyond those hours and on weekends. The court examined the evidence and found that the duties described by the respondent were clerical in nature, not managerial. The petitioner failed to lead any evidence to rebut the respondent's deposition. The court held that on the basis of the evidence on record, the finding of the Industrial Court could not be disputed. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Definition of Workman - Clerical vs Managerial Functions - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The respondent, appointed as Secretary of a trust, performed duties including convening meetings, recording minutes, typing, and collecting rent. The court held that these duties were clerical in nature and not managerial, thus the respondent was a workman. The petitioner failed to rebut the evidence. (Paras 1-3) B) Industrial Law - Burden of Proof - Employer's Failure to Rebut Evidence - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The petitioner contended that the respondent was not a workman but failed to lead evidence to rebut the respondent's deposition that his duties were clerical. The court held that the finding of the Industrial Court could not be disputed. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent, appointed as Secretary under Clause 15 of the Deed of Settlement, performing duties such as convening meetings, recording minutes, typing, and collecting rent, is a 'workman' under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Final Decision
Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Definition of workman
- Clerical vs managerial functions
- Burden of proof on employer to show employee is not workman
