You are on page 1of 5

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court on !ovember, "###


$%uiva&ent citations' "## ()*+ ,L- .)/, ("##+ 00LL1 /2 P H
3uthor' S Sudha&4ar
5ench' S Sudha&4ar, 6 S Gi&&
178G6$!9
S:S: Sudha&4ar, 1:
: 9his petition has been fi&ed by the emp&oyee cha&&enging the a;ard of the Labour
Court dated <:.:*** (copy 3nne=ure P>?+ vide ;hich the Labour Court he&d that the
petitioner is not covered under the definition of @;or4man@ as provided under Section
"(s+ of the 0ndustria& 8isputes 3ct (hereinafter referred to as @the 3ct@+ had disposed
of the reference on the pre&iminary finding, ho;ever, advising the petitioner to see4
remedy in theCivi& Court:
": 9he petitioner contends that he ;as appointed as Senior 3ccounts 3ssistant on
"*:#:*)) vide appointment order (3nne=ure P>+ by 6>s Ke&vinator of 0ndia Ltd:
3ccording to the petitioner, he comp&eted his probation period of si= months and ;as
thereafter confirmed: 0t is the contention of the petitioner that in the year **2
Ke&vinator of 0ndia Ltd: ;as ta4en over by 6>s Ahir&poo& of 0ndia Ltd: i:e: respondent
!o: " ;ith a&& assets, &iabi&ities, men, materia&, management, administration and
functiona& contro&: 9he service conditions of the petitioner remained the same: 0t is
further the contention of the petitioner that his post ;as re-designated as 3ccounts
$=ecutive vide order dated ?:#:**2 ;:e:f: :):**2 by respondent !o: " ;ith the
same status, position, duties and in the same department of accounts: 9he petitioner
;as removed from service on /:*:**?: He cha&&enged the termination and gave a
demand notice and u&timate&y the dispute ;as referred by the Labour Court ;hich
gave the findings as mentioned above:
/: !otice of motion ;as issued and respondent !o: " has appeared and contested the
c&aim of petitioner by fi&ing a ;ritten statement: 3ccording to respondent !o: ", the
tota& emo&uments of the petitioner ;ere -s: .,2)?>- per month, the basic pay being -s:
",**#>- per month: 0t is their contention that the petitioner ;as &ast&y ;or4ing as
3ccounts $=ecutive since :):**2 and ;as dra;ing the sa&ary of -s: 2#.:?# per
month and as an 3ccounts $=ecutive his job ;as to reconci&e and correct the 3ccounts
;hich are essentia&&y the jobs or supervisory in nature: 0t has further averred that any
3ccounts $=ecutive, in the e=ercise of his duties, ;ou&d carry out the corrections and
reconci&iations of 3ccounts and may a&so prepare che%ues ;hich is a job pertaining
high degree of confidentia&&y and responsibi&ity because the che%ues are to be issued
to the supp&iers and therefore, these functions are not c&erica& in nature: 0t is further
averred that the petitioner, ;hen he ;as appointed as 3ccounts 3ssistant in the Grade
#) his emo&uments ;ere -s: ?":"2 per month and he ;as promoted as 3ccounts
Officer in Grade #* ;ith the sa&ary of -s: )2":<: 0t is further contended that ;hi&e
being posted as $=ecutive in the $=ecutive Cadre, his month&y emo&uments ;ere
enhanced to -s: .,2)?>-: 0n addition to that, he ;as entit&ed to medica& reimbursement:
Leave 9rave& 3ssistant (L9C+ and that these emo&uments are not admissib&e to Grade
# officers of the Company ;hich is the &ast grade for Officers: 0t has further
contended that if the respondent ;as to ta4e duties of c&erica& nature from the
petitioner, then the petitioner ;ou&d not have been promoted to such a high post:
.: 8efinition of @Aor4man@ is in Section "(s+ of the 3ct, ;hich is as under '-
@Aor4man@ means any person (inc&uding an apprentice+ emp&oyed in any industry to
do any manua&, uns4i&&ed, technica&, operation, c&erica& or supervisory ;or4 for hire or
re;ard, ;hether the terms of emp&oyment be e=press or imp&ied, and for the purposes
of any proceeding under this 3ct in re&ation to an industria& dispute, inc&udes any such
person ;ho has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection ;ith, or as a
conse%uence of, that dispute, or ;hose dismissa&, discharge or retrenchment had &ed to
that dispute, but does not inc&ude any such person '-
(i+ == ===
(ii+ == ===
(iii+ Aho is emp&oyed main&y in manageria& or administrative capacityB or
(iv+ Aho, being emp&oyed in a supervisory capacity, dra;s ;ages e=ceeding one
thousand si= hundred rupees per mensem or e=ercises, either by the nature of the
duties attached to the office or by reason of the po;ers vested in him, functions
main&y of a manageria& nature:@
2: 0f the petitioner ;as emp&oyed in a supervisory capacity, he ;ou&d have stood
e=c&uded from the definition of the ;ord @;or4man@ in vie; of the emo&uments, he
;as receiving: Ho;ever, if ;e see the definition of @;or4man@ as a ;ho&e,
supervisory ;or4 is one of the duties ;hich the ;or4man has to do: 9here are other
types of ;or4 such as c&erica&, technica&, operationa& etc: ,or those types of ;or4,
there is no &imit so far as earning capacity is concerned for e=c&uding them from the
definition of ;or4man: 9he arguments advanced before us are on the point ;hether
the duties of the petitioner ;ere c&erica& or ;ere e=ecutive in nature:
?: Counse& for the petitioner has cited the case of 3r4a& Govind -aj -ao v: Ciba Geigy
of 0ndia Ltd:, 5ombay reported as 30- *)2 SC *)2, 0t has been he&d therein that
;here an emp&oyee has mu&tifarious duties and the %uestion is raised ;hether he is a
@;or4man@ or some one other than the ;or4man, the Court must find out ;hat are if
the primary and basic duties of the person concerned and he is incidenta&&y as4ed to so
some other ;or4, it may not necessari&y be in tune ;ith the basic dutiesB these
additiona& duties cannot change the character and status of the person concerned: 0t is
further observed therein that the dominant purpose of emp&oyment must be first ta4en
into consideration and the g&oss of some additiona& duties must be rejected ;hi&e
determining the status and character of the person: 0t is further observed that a person
sha&& not cease to be a @;or4man@ if he performs some supervisory duties but he must
be a person ;ho is engaged in a supervisory capacity:
<: 0n the present case, 6A- Shri 8:S: 5hatia has stated in his deposition, copy of
;hich has been produced at 3nne=ure P><, that the petitioner ;as re- designated as
$=ecutive: 9he hierarchy of the officers, according to the ;itness is as under '-
8irectors of 3ccounts
Sr: 6anager (3ccounts+
6anager (3ccounts+
8y: 6anager (3ccounts+
Sr: $=ecutive 3ccounts
$=ecutive 3ccounts
1unior $=ecutive
): 0t has been stated by 6A- in his cross-e=amination that the nature of petitionerCs
duty ;as to &oo4 after supp&iersC &edger etc: and had independent supervision: He used
to prepare che%ues but ;as not authoriDed to sign the che%ues and prepare vouchers
and ;ou&d sign on the vouchers: He does not 4no; as to ;hom the che%ues ;ere to be
submitted for signatures: He has further stated that junior $=ecutive does c&eri-: fica&
;or4 in the Company: 3ccording to this ;itness $=ecutivesC duties ;ere to supervise
the &edger and to reconci&e: He did not 4no; ;ho did the verification ;or4: He has
further stated that in the company on&y 6anager is authoriDed to ta4e discip&inary
action and on appointments, &eave etc: He has further stated that the petitioner has no
po;er or authority to appoint>terminate any body or ta4e discip&inary action: 6A-"
Shri 8:P: Sharma, in his deposition (Copy 3nne=ure P>)+ has stated that the petitioner
;as not a c&er4 but his duty ;as to prepare vouchers, detai&s of payment of che%ues:
He has no manageria& or administrative po;ers and he did not have any supervisory
po;ers: So far as the ;or4 of preparing the ban4 reconci&iation statement is
concerned, in the case of 3r4a& Govind -aj -ai (supra+ it is observed in Para !o: * of
the 1udgment as under '-
@*: 9he Labour Court then proceeded to e=amine another circumstance to determine
the status of the appe&&ant: 0t ;as submitted on beha&f of the emp&oyer that the
appe&&ant had a&so to do the ;or4 of preparing ban4 reconci&iation statements: 0t ;as
observed that the reconci&iation of statements cannot be regarded as s4i&&ed or
uns4i&&ed, manua& or c&erica& but one re%uiring creativeness, imagination and
app&ication of mind and, therefore, any one doing such ;or4 ;ou&d not be a ;or4man:
9his approach betrays &ac4 of under- standing of ;hat constitutes ban4 reconci&iation
statements: Ahen a party opens an account, it goes on ma4ing credits and
;ithdra;a&s: 9he ban4 maintains a recurring account: 9he party opening ihe account
for its continuous ;atch may open a corresponding account in its o;n boo4s: 0n order
to see that there are no errors in credits and ;ithdra;a&s and the ba&ance is dra;n at
regu&ar interva&s, reconci&iation of figures in the accounts of both the parties is
underta4en: 9his is one of the most mechanica& types of c&erica& ;or4: Ho;ever, the
Labour Court fe&& into an error ;hen after ta4ing note of the fact that the appe&&ant ;as
as4ed to prepare ban4s reconci&iation statements, &oo4ed into the decision in Kir&os4ar
5rothers Ltd: v: Labour Court, *<? L0C *) (8e&hi+ ;herein preparation of
budgetary statements ;as regarded as ;or4 re%uiring creativeness, and the Labour
Court after referring to that judgment of budgetary statement app&ied it to the case of a
man ;ho had nothing to do ;ith preparation of budgetary statements but mere&y to do
the ;ho&&y mechanica& ;or4 of ban4Cs reconci&iation statements and recorded a ;ho&&y
perverse conc&usion: 9his is a serious error apparent on the face of the record
committed by the Labour Court ;hich has inf&uenced our thin4ing:@
*: 9he appointment>promotion order vide ;hich the petitioner ;as given the a&&eged
$=ecutive post is dated ?:#:**2, copy of ;hich is at 3nne=ure P>/: !ature of ;or4
;hich the petitioner ;as re%uired to do has not been specified in the order: On&y
mention is there that he ;as positioned in the $=ecutive cadre of the OrganiDation:
9he condition mentioned therein is regarding the pay and per4s and not the nature of
;or4: !othing is sho;n from any -u&es>0nstructions>-eso&ution>direction that a
particu&ar ;or4 is to be done by the $=ecutive, the post to ;hich the petitioner ;as
promoted: Counse& for respondent !o: " has referred to the averments made in the
;ritten statement that the petitioner ;as entit&ed to medica& reimbursement upto -s:
.,###>- per month and L:9:3: and that these emo&uments are not even admissib&e to
Grade # Officer of the company ;hich is the &ast grade of officers and if respondent
!o: " ;as on&y to ta4e the c&erifica& duties from the petitioner, then the petitioner
;ou&d not have been promoted to such a higher position ;ith higher emo&uments: He
has a&so argued that high degree of confidentia&ity is to be e=pected from the post of
the petitioner ;hich cannot be treated as duty of a c&erica& nature: 0t is a&so argued by
him that the petitioner ;as doing supervisory duties as per the statements of their
;itnesses:
#: 0n the deposition, the peiitioner Sanjeev Kumar: AA-" (Copy 3nne=ure P>#+ has
stated in his cross-e=amination that even his juniors ;ere preparing the
che%ues>vouchers: He has admitted that there is some difference in the a&&o;ances of
staff and other ;or4ers: He has stated that he has no 4no;&edge ;hether the ;or4ers
;ere getting 83 and other incentives, mi&4, cyc&e, specia& %ua&ities a&&o;ances,
vegetab&e and other incentives etc: He has further stated that he did not 4no; if the
staff ;as a&so getting some incentives or not but he has admitted that he is not getting
the said incentives>a&&o;ances:
: 0t ;i&& be dangerous to adjudge the nature of ;or4 from the a&&o;ances a man is
getting: !ature of ;or4 is a&&o;ed to him by virtue of his post: Ahat has come in
evidence of respondent is that the petitioner ;as doing the ;or4 of preparing
vouchers>detai&s of che%ues and that he had no manageria&>administrative po;ers: 0t is
not sho;n by respondent !o: " as to ;hat specific the ;or4 of the petitioner ;as: 9his
being so and from the ;or4 a&&eged&y a&&otted to the post of the petitioner, coup&ed
;ith the princip&e &aid do;n by the Supreme Court in the case of 3r4aE Govind -aj
-ao (supra+ the conc&usion that has to be dra;n is that the petitioner ;as a @;or4man@
as covered under Section "(s+ of the 3ct: Ae, therefore, do not agree ;ith the finding
of the Labour Court:
": 3s a resu&t the a;ard of the Labour Court is set-aside: Petitioner is he&d to be a
;or4man: 9he case is remanded to the Labour Court to ta4e decision in accordance
;ith &a; on the other aspects of the case: 0f any party ;ants to adduce evidence, if
app&ication is made in a reasonab&e time, the Labour Court shou&d consider the same:
Parties to remain present before the Labour Court on /#::"###:
9his ;rit petition is a&&o;ed in the above terms:
/: Petition a&&o;ed

You might also like