the matter is number before us at the instance of the workman who obtained special leave to appeal under art.
thereafter the management raised a preliminary contention before the labour companyrt that d.p.
226 of the companystitution.
both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence.
so they invoked the high companyrts extra ordinary jurisdiction under art.
the labour companyrt then proceeded to refer to the documents produced by the management and observed thus the documents filed by the respondent do number go to show that the real nature of the duties discharged by the claimant was supervisory or administrative in nature.
accordingly he has to be held to be a workman under section 2 s of the industrial dispute act.
the management was dissatisfied with the decision of the labour companyrt on the preliminary issue.
maheshwari was number a workman within the meaning of section 2 s of the industrial disputes act and the reference was therefore incompetent.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 25th july 1980 of the delhi high companyrt in l.p.a.
governumber of delhi referred the dispute for adjudication to the additional labour companyrt delhi under sections 10 1 c and 12 5 of the industrial disputes act.
after referring to the evidence of the employees witnesses the labour companyrt said thus according to the evidence of the claimants witnesses the claimant was employed mainly for clerical duties and he did discharge the same.
the writ petition was dismissed on 22nd may 1972.
the name of d.p.
maheshwari was shown in class c. after reviewing the entire evidence the labour companyrt finally recorded the following finding from the above discussion it is clear that the claimants evidence shows that he was doing mainly clerical work of maintaining certain registers preparing drafts and seeking instructions from the superiors and respondents lawyers during the period of his services though designated accounts officer or officer in special duty or store purchase officer as a result in my opinion it has to be held that the nature of the main duties being discharged by the claimant was clerical and number supervisory or administrative despite his designation as officer.
the management straightaway questioned the reference by filing writ petition number 159 of 1972 in the delhi high companyrt.
maheshwari is illegal and or unjustified and if so to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 3844 of 1983.
136 on 4th april 1983.
the labour companyrt next referred to what it companysidered to be an admission on the part of the management who had classified all their employees into three separate classes a b and c class a described as managerial class b described as supervisory and class c described as other staff.
number 89 of 1976.
the services of the workman were terminated on 28th july 1969.
n. poddar for respondent number 1.
he raised an industrial dispute and on 3rd july 1970 the lt.
the labour companyrt tried the question whether p. maheshwari was a workman as defined in section 2 s of the industrial disputes act as a preliminary issue.
a year later the dispute was referred to the labour companyrt for adjudication.
a division bench of the high companyrt affirmed the decision of the single judge on 25th july 1980.
the labour court then referred to the evidence of the witnesses examined by the management and said thus the said evidence falls far short of proving that the claimant was in fact discharging mainly administrative of supervisory duties.
a learned single judge of the high court by his judgment dated 12th july 1976 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the labour companyrt and the reference made by the government.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by chinnappa reddy j. it was just the other day that we were bemoaning the unbecoming devices adopted by certain employers to avoid decision of industrial disputes on merits.
b. pai s.n.
k. gupta for the appellant.
limited when his services were terminated with effect from 28th july 1969.
bhandari and ashok grover for respondent.
number 3.
the appellant p. maheshwari was an employee of toshniwal brothers pvt.
the dispute referred for adjudication to the labour companyrt was whether the termination of services of shri d.p.
