President, Naduvattom Service Sahakarana Bank Ltd. vs Labour Court and Another

S. Siri Jagan, J

The Management in I.D. No. 7/2000, before the Labour Court, Kozhikode, is the petitioner herein. The issue referred for adjudication was "justifiability of the action of the management in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the worker by name, Sri. N. Prabhakaran, who was serving as Secretary in the Management-Naduvattom Co-operative Bank Ltd". The petitioner-management raised a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the reference itself, on the ground that the workman in question was the Secretary of the society exercising managerial as well as supervisory functions and his salary is above the limit prescribed in the definition of workman in the Industrial Disputes Act. Since the workman is not a workman as defined under the Act, the Labour Court cannot decide the issue referred, was the contention raised by the petitioner before the Labour Court. The Labour Court considered two questions as preliminary points. First is the question as to whether the workman is a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act and the second is as to whether the enquiry conducted against the workman is proper. The Labour Court, by Ext. P11 preliminary order, found both points in favour of the workman. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P11 preliminary order. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the finding of the Labour Court itself proves beyond any doubt that the workman was the Secretary of the society exercising managerial and supervisory functions. But, without giving any reasons whatsoever, the Labour Court has simply held that from the evidence on record, the worker involved in the reference is a workman satisfying the definition u/s 2(s) of the Act. According to the petitioner, the finding is totally perverse. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order, or direction, calling for the records leading to Exhibit. P11 preliminary order of the 1st respondent Labour Court and quash the same.

(ii) Declare that the Compulsory retired Secretary Sri. N. Prabhakaran, of the petitioner Bank, was not a workman at the time of his such retirement, and hence that the reference to the Labour Court is bad.

The counsel for the second respondent submits that the Labour Court has considered the evidence on record and the Labour Court was of the opinion that the duties and functions assigned to the workman does not answer managerial or supervisory functions and therefore the Labour Court was perfectly right in coming to the conclusion that the workman was a workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

The question as to whether the workman is a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act was considered by the Labour Court in Paragraphs 14 and 15 of Ext. P11 preliminary order. The same reads as follows:

The Secretary is an officer under the Cooperative Societies Act empowered under the rules and bye-laws to give directions in regard to the business of a society. Clause 46 to 49 of Ext. M2 bye-laws of the management Bank enumerates the power and duties of the Secretary. As per clause 46 the Bank accounts of the Bank are to be jointly operated by the President and the Secretary and the Secretary will be the custodian of the properties of the Bank. He is the joint custodian of cash along with the cashier. It is the Secretary who has to manage and control the workers and expend amounts subject to the approval of the Bank of Directors. The documents on behalf of the Bank are to be executed jointly by the President and the Secretary and it is the Secretary who has to represent in the litigations for and against the Management Bank. These provisions make it abundantly clear that the managerial and administrative functions of the Bank are vested with the Secretary. The worker has also admitted in the box that he used to discharge the functions mentioned in clause 46 to 49 of the bye-laws, inspect registers and supervise the sub-ordinates duties. Though the Board is the ultimate authority, all the duties attached to his office and by reason of the powers vested on him, his functions were mainly of managerial and supervisory in nature. Admittedly he is drawing salary exceeding the prescribed limit. The case of the worker that he was not allowed to discharge the functions of the Secretary envisaged in the bye-laws is not supported by any evidence. The principles under which the Secretary of a Co-operative Society can be treated as a workman. It is also worthwhile to refer to the decisions reported in 1988 (2) KLT 781 and 2003 (2) KLT SN 3, Case No. 4 to understand the parameters under which the Secretary of Cooperative Society can be termed as a workman under the I.D. Act.

From the evidence before hand, I hold that the worker involved in the reference was a workman who satisfied the definition of section 2(s) of the Act and he is competent to maintain the reference.

Paragraph 14 categorically shows that the workman was the Secretary of the management-bank and he was, in fact, exercising functions mainly managerial and supervisory in nature. Admittedly, he was also drawing salary exceeding the prescribed limit. Therefore, it is beyond comprehension as to how the Labour Court could have come to the conclusion that from the evidence available, the workman involved is a workman satisfying the definition of Section 2(s).

In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that Ext. P11 order, holding that the workman involved in the dispute is a workman, who answered the definition of workman in Section 2(s) of the Act is patently pervasive. Accordingly, I set aside the finding of the Labour Court that the workman was a workman as defined u/s 2(s). Since the workman is not a workman under the Act, the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Consequently, the second finding also is clearly unsustainable.

Accordingly, Ext. P11 preliminary order is set aside. It is declared that the workman involved in the dispute was not a workman as defined under the Act. Consequently, the reference is not maintainable. The Labour Court is directed to reduce the industrial dispute from its files. However, I make'' it clear that this will not stand in the way of the workman involved seeking appropriate reliefs as provided under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

The writ petition is allowed as above.