Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nagpur Mahanagar Palika Samanvaya Chikitsak Sangh, a union of Ayurvedic doctors employed by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court dated 23rd February 2009 dismissing their complaints (ULP Nos. 590 and 591 of 1987). The complaints sought a direction to the employer to implement an agreement reached by resolution dated 07.11.1974 regarding pay scales and to pay the union members salary in the scale of Rs. 680-1500, equivalent to the salary payable to MBBS Medical Officers working under the Corporation. The Industrial Court recorded a finding that the members of the complainant union are Ayurvedic doctors claiming parity with MBBS doctors and held that they cannot be called 'employees' within the meaning of Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The High Court examined the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which excludes persons employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity or in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per month or exercising functions mainly of a managerial nature. The court noted that the Industrial Court had correctly applied the law and that the Ayurvedic doctors, being professionals, do not fall within the definition of 'workman'. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the Industrial Court's order. The judgment emphasizes that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court can be invoked only by a 'workman' as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, and Ayurvedic doctors employed by a municipal corporation are not workmen.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Definition of Workman - Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Ayurvedic doctors employed by a municipal corporation are not 'workmen' as they perform duties of a supervisory/managerial nature and are not engaged in manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work as defined - The Industrial Court correctly held that the complainant union's members cannot be called 'employees' under Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 - Held that the petition challenging the dismissal of the complaint is without merit (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Ayurvedic doctors employed by Nagpur Municipal Corporation are 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether they are entitled to pay parity with MBBS doctors.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 23rd February 2009 dismissing the complaints. The court held that the Ayurvedic doctors are not 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore the Industrial Court correctly held that they cannot be called 'employees' under Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
Law Points
- Definition of workman under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Ayurvedic doctors not workmen
- pay parity claim rejected
- jurisdiction of Industrial Court
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (09) 113
WRIT PETITION NO. 1754 OF 2009
Shri B.M. Khan for Petitioner, Shri Sharad Bhattad for Respondents
Nagpur Mahanagar Palika Samanvaya Chikitsak Sangh, through its General Secretary
Nagpur Municipal Corporation, through its Mayor, and The Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the dismissal of complaints by the Industrial Court seeking implementation of an agreement regarding pay scales and pay parity with MBBS doctors.
Remedy Sought
Direction to the employer to implement the agreement reached by resolution dated 07.11.1974 regarding pay scales and to pay the members of the complainant union salary in the scale of Rs. 680-1500, equivalent to the salary payable to MBBS Medical Officers.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Court dismissed the complaints holding that the members of the complainant union (Ayurvedic doctors) are not 'employees' under Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court by its common judgment and order dated 23rd February 2009 dismissed Complaint (ULP) Nos. 590 and 591 of 1987.
Issues
Whether Ayurvedic doctors employed by Nagpur Municipal Corporation are 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Whether the Industrial Court correctly held that the members of the complainant union cannot be called 'employees' under Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Ayurvedic doctors are entitled to pay parity with MBBS doctors and that the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaints.
The respondents argued that the Ayurvedic doctors are not 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 excludes persons employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity or in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per month or exercising functions mainly of a managerial nature. Ayurvedic doctors employed by a municipal corporation, being professionals, do not fall within the definition of 'workman' and therefore cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court.
Judgment Excerpts
The Industrial Court has recorded the finding that the members of the complainant Union are the Ayurvedic Doctors claiming parity in the scale of pay with M.B.B.S Medical Officers.
The Industrial Court has held that the members of the complainant Union cannot be called as 'employees' within the meaning of Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
The jurisdiction of the Industrial Court can be invoked by the 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) Nos. 590 and 591 of 1987 before the Industrial Court seeking implementation of an agreement regarding pay scales and pay parity with MBBS doctors. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaints by common judgment and order dated 23rd February 2009. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court challenging the Industrial Court's order.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(s)
- Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946: Section 3(13)
