Managing Director, Sri Gopalakrishna Jute Mills Ltd. vs N. Satya Rao and Another

J. Eswara Prasad, J.—The first respondent raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D. No. 151 of 1991 before the Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Visakbapatnam. The petitioner took the stand that the first respondent is nota workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and that the proceedings are not maintainable and requested the Labour Court to try the question as to whether the first respondent is a workman within the meaning of the Act as a preliminary point. The Tribunal rejected the request of the petitioner holding that the question whether the first respondent is a workman or not is a mixed question of fact and law and the matter has to be decided after the entire evidence is recorded on all aspects of the matter.

Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri I. A. Naidu, strenuously contended that when the petitioner denied that the first respondent is a workman within the meaning of the Act, it was the duty of the Tribunal to try the said question as a preliminary issue and no further proceedings can go on without the question of jurisdiction being settled by the Labour Court. He contended that the first respondent was promoted as Assistant Accountant in January 1983 and was appointed as Additional Accountant from March 1, 1983 and later on promoted as Accountant (Raw-materials) from January 1, 1987 and that he draws wages at Rs. 1685/- per month and that he is not entitled to approach the Tribunal for relief.

The learned counsel for the first respondent, submitted that the first respondent was not performing supervisory duties in the petitioner''s company and that he was appointed as a clerk with effect from January 28, 1974 and was later promoted as Accountant and that he was not given any supervisory powers and that he is only discharging the duties of clerical nature and that no subordinate staff is working under him.

The Tribunal was correct in holding that the contentions raised by the parties involved questions of fact which have to be decided after both the parties adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions.

In D.P. Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration and Others, it was held at p. 427 that the Tribunals and Courts who are requested to decide preliminary questions must ask themselves whether such threshold part-adjudication is really necessary and whether it will not lead to other woeful consequences. The Tribunal applied its mind to the contentions raised by the parties and felt that the matter requires investigation into the facts and it is not proper to hold piece-meal investigation into title facts. In the above mentioned decision it was further held by the Supreme Court that Tribunals like Industrial Tribunals are constituted to decide, expeditious-ly, special kinds of disputes and their jurisdiction to so decide is not to be stifled by all manner of preliminary objections and journeyings up and down.

This Court in the Management of Sing areni Colleries v. Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad W.P. No. 1185 of 1984, dated November 26, 1987, depricated this method of raising preliminary issue and filing the writ petitions on preliminary points in industrial matters, which will wholly defeat the purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act.

If the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the first respondent is not discharging supervisory duties and he is discharging only clerical duties, the Tribunal will have jurisdiction to go into the disputes involved in the matter pending before it. It will be unnecessary to decide the issues separately, which will only drag on the proceedings.

There are no merits in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.