The Court pointed out that Development Officers were classified separately both from Officers on the one hand and Supervisors and Clerical Staff on the other and that they as well as Class III and Class IV staff other than Superintendents were placed on par inasmuch as their appointing and disciplinary authority was the Divisional Manager whereas that of Officers was Zonal Manager.
The Court accepted the finding of the Labour Court that primarily the duties of the employee were of a clerical nature and held that he was a workman.
Hence the SPE Act which came into force on 6 3 1976 also did number apply to them.
The Court also referred to the earlier decisions in K. Verma4 and Delton Cable6 cases.
The Court then referred to the nature of duties of the Development Officers and pointed out that a Development Officer was to be a whole time employee and that his operations were to be restricted to a defined area and that he was liable to be transferred.
It is necessary to keep in mind the said changes since the decisions of this Court delivered on the point from time to time are based on the definition, as it stood at the relevant time.
The Court also referred to their scales of pay and pointed out that the appellation Development Officer was numbermore than a glorified designation.
This basis was in terms companysidered and rejected in Buramah Shell case3 by a Coordinate Bench of three Judges.
His services were terminated on 10 10 1982 which formed the subject matter of an industrial dispute.
In Arkal Govind Raj Rao v. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd.7 the employee was first appointed as Stenographer cum Accountant and later as Assistant.
Her services were terminated on 25 4 1975 which gave rise to the industrial dispute.
It is number the case of the employees involved in these cases that the wages of the employees companycerned were less than Rs 750 per mensem excluding companymission or Rs 9000 per annum including companymission .
