Sabirbhai Ganibhai Beawarwala vs Khedawala Calendar Factory

M.R. Shah, J.—By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and award dated 30.01.2010 passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal (IC) No. 33/2007, by the the learned Industrial Court Appellate Court has allowed the said Appeal preferred by the respondent and quashed and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in T Application No. 792/2002 dated 08.02.2007.

The facts leading to the present petition in nut-shell are as under:

Petitioner, who was serving as Accountant cum Supervisor, raised an industrial dispute challenging his alleged termination which was referred to the Labour Court, Ahmedabad being T Application No. 792/2002 and the Labour Court, Ahmedabad by judgment and award dated 08.02.2007 partly allowed the said T Application No. 792/2002 directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with 50% back wages and continuity of services. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad dated 08.02.2007 in T Application No. 792/2002, respondent preferred Appeal before the Industrial Court being Appeal (IC) No. 33/2007 and on appreciation of evidence, more particularly, the deposition of the petitioner himself, learned Industrial Court allowed the said Appeal by holding that as the duties performed by the petitioner was of managerial nature, he cannot be said to be a workman and therefore, the learned Industrial Court allowed the said Appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgment and award declared by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad dated 30.01.2010 passed in Appeal (IC) No. 33/2007, petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Shri Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the Industrial Court has materially erred in allowing the said Appeal by holding that the duties performed by the petitioner was of managerial in nature and therefore, he cannot be said to be workman. It is submitted that finding given by the Industrial Court is contrary to the evidence on record and/or misinterpretation of the evidence on record. It is submitted that as such in the cross, it is not the case on behalf of the petitioner that he was having any authority to issue memo and/or to take disciplinary action against other workmen. It is submitted that as such onus is upon the management to prove that petitioner was performing the duties of managerial nature. It is submitted that in the present case, the respondent management has failed to adduce any documentary evidence to establish and/or to prove that the petitioner was performing duties of managerial nature. Therefore, it is submitted that the Industrial Court has committed an error in quashing and setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court No. 10, Ahmedabad in T Application No. 792/2002. By making above submission, it is requested to admit/allow the present petition.

Having heard Shri Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court as well as the deposition of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the Industrial Court has committed any error in holding that the petitioner was performing the duties of a managerial nature. I have gone through the deposition of the petitioner and even in the examination-in-chief, the petitioner has submitted that he was performing the duties of supervisor since last 25 years. He has also admitted in the cross-examination that it was his duty to oversee the work of other employees and to see that they perform their duties and that if there is any loss caused by them then he was to issue memo and/or give warning to them. Considering the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the finding given by the Industrial Court that the duties performed by the petitioner was of managerial nature and therefore, he cannot be said to be a workman, cannot be said to be misreading and/or contrary to the evidence on record. The aforesaid finding given by the Industrial Court is on appreciation of evidence, more particularly, the deposition of the petitioner himself. When from the evidence of the petitioner himself, it is borne out and it is found that the duties performed by the petitioner was of managerial nature, the respondent management is not, thereafter, required to prove further by leading evidence that the duties performed by the petitioner was of a managerial nature. In absence of any other evidence, the management is required to prove the aforesaid fact, however, from the evidence/deposition of the petitioner himself, when it is borne out and it is established that the duties performed by the petitioner was of managerial nature, there is no further onus on the part of the respondent management to prove the same again. The finding given by the Appellate Court is on appreciation of evidence which is neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record and therefore, the same is not required to be interfered by this Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the petition which deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.