1987 JTR(SC) 74
1988 AIR(SC) 384 ; 1998 3 LLJ 537 ; 1987 Supp SCC 40 ; 1987 SCC(L&S) 283 ; 1988 KHC 1090
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND V. KHALID, JJ.
Vimal Kumar Jain, Petitioner
Versus
Labour Court, Kanpur and another, Respondents.
Spl. Leave Petn. (Civil) No. 13994 of 1984,
D/- 20-1-1987.
Act Referred :INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT : S.2(s)
Labour Law - Workmen - Court have heard at length and we are not satisfied that the case calls for our interference – Question raised in this case is whether the petitioner is a workman – Labour Court has found that he is not a workman – Evidence is that he supervises the work of the maintenance department in the capacity of Maintenance Engineer and that he does the work through fitters and turners etc. who are his subordinates –Held, It is also pointed out that he grants leave, initiates disciplinary proceedings etc – He has also power to make temporary appointments – Court are of the view that the Labour Court is right in holding that the petitioner is not a workman – Stay stands vacated – Petition dismissed.
Labour Law - Workmen - Court have heard at length and we are not satisfied that the case calls for our interference – Question raised in this case is whether the petitioner is a workman – Labour Court has found that he is not a workman – Evidence is that he supervises the work of the maintenance department in the capacity of Maintenance Engineer and that he does the work through fitters and turners etc. who are his subordinates –Held, It is also pointed out that he grants leave, initiates disciplinary proceedings etc – He has also power to make temporary appointments – Court are of the view that the Labour Court is right in holding that the petitioner is not a workman – Stay stands vacated – Petition dismissed.
Judgment
ORDER :- We have heard Mr. Garg at length and we are not satisfied that the case calls for our interference. The question raised in this case is whether the petitioner is a workman. The Labour Court has found that he is not a workman. The evidence is that he supervises the work of the maintenance department in the capacity of Maintenance Engineer and that he does the work through fitters and turners etc. who are his subordinates. It is also pointed out that he grants leave, initiates disciplinary proceedings etc. He has also power to make temporary appointments. We are of the view that the Labour Court is right in holding that the petitioner is not a workman. The stay stands vacated. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1988 SC 384