Purchase Officer functioning in the managerial capacity will not be a ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act

Paycheck, salary, compensation, minimum wages, salary survey, legal aspects, legal cases, insurance, liability, payment

Twenty First Century Printers Ltd., Mumbai

Vs

K.P.Abraham & Anr

Facts of the Case:
The petitioner is a company, engaged in the manufacture of printed packing material. They had appointed the respondent No. 1 as Purchase Officer. Apprantelly, in the course of employment, the petitioner asked the respondent No. 1  to carry some article from Mumbai to Ahmadabad. The respondent No. 1 declined to carry. The incident took an ugly turn and the petitioner   decided to terminate the respondent No. 1’s services. Apparently  , some abusive language was also used. However, on the main issues raised in this petition i.e. whether the respondent No. 1 was a workman.

The labour court held that the respondent  No.1 is a workman under the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 and termination of his service is illegal. The Learned Presiding officer has directed reinstatement of the respondent No. 1 with continuity of service and payment of full back wages.

The Petitioner has challenge the  award of labour court in Hon’ble High Court.

Decision:
The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned  order of labour court in holding him a workman and setting aside his termination. It was held that the purchase officer functioning in the managerial capacity will not be a ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act.

 

Source: Labour Law Reporter 5, January 2009

 

Also Check: Other Legal Aspects

 

loading...