Lenin Kumar Ray Vs Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)
Considering the nature of duties being performed, an Assistant Engineer will not fall under the ambit of ‘workman’ as contemplated under ID Act.
By the impugned order, the High Court set aside the award of the Labour Court to the extent that the employee is to be reinstated and to be paid compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu of back wages, while upholding the finding of the Labour Court that the employee falls under the definition of “workman” as given in section 2(s) of the ID Act.
Going into the factual matrix, the respondent is a newspaper establishment publishing a daily newspaper in English having its publication unit at Bhubaneswar. The petitioner employee was appointed as Junior Engineer (Electronics and Communication) by the management on 07.06.1997 and was subsequently, confirmed in the said post. Thereafter, petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (E&C) and was regularised. As his post became obsolete, he was discharged from service on 08.10.2003, a sum of Rs.6,995.65 was paid in lieu of notice.
The petitioner raised an industrial dispute that was referred to conciliation. On failure of the conciliation, the matter was referred to Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court passed an award reinstating the employee in service with a compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu of back wages and further held, the employee was a “workman” in terms of section 2(s) of the ID Act. Aggrieved petitioner invoked Writ jurisdiction of the High Court; while partly allowing the petition, it upheld the award of the Labour Court in holding the employee as a ‘workman’ under the ID Act, resulting in the present appeal to the Supreme Court (“SC”).
