Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeals Nos. 373 and 374 of 1986, decided on 25th June, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 2 (viii) a (xx)(d)‑‑Supervisory staff‑‑Declaration of status‑‑Those employees, held, could be declared as employer by notification who belong to supervisory staff‑‑Such declaration of status being a question of fact, parties would be required to lead evidence in proof thereof‑‑ Finding of Labour Court without being premature would not be sustainable.
The appeals, captioned above, are directed against the decisions, dated 12‑5‑1986 whereby .the grievance petitions of the appellant for setting aside the punishment of W.I.P. for one year in one case and punishment of W.I.P. for three years with fine of Rs.10,000 in the other, were dismissed on the sole ground that the appellant had been, declared by means of Notification No.E‑1/83‑NI/I, dated 15‑i1‑1983 as an employer.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that before declaring the appellant as an employer, the Court is to give finding after inviting evidence that he belonged to supervisory staff. The record shows that ho such objection was raised on behalf of the respondent in the written statement filed in the grievance petition wherein punishment of W.I.P. for one year had been challenged. However, in other case, in the written statement it was contended that the appellant being a Station Master belonged to supervisory staff. No miscellaneous application was given raising such a plea in the case in which this plea had not been taken in the written statement. In both the cases, no opportunity was afforded to the parties to lead evidence on the point whether the appellant belonged or not to supervisory staff. The provision in section 2 of clause (viii) sub‑clause (d) of the I.R.O, 1969, is that those employees can be declared as employer by notification who belong to supervisory staff etc. Since this was a question of fact, whether the appellant belonged to supervisory staff, it .was necessary to allow the parties to produce evidence on the point. The decisions of the learned lower Court was, therefore, premature and without any evidence thus, are not sustainable.
3. As a result, the appeals are accepted and setting aside the impugned decisions, the cases are remanded for fresh decision on the point after inviting evidence from the parties. If the learned lower Court comes to the conclusion that the appellant is not an employer, the case shall be decided on merits also. The parties are directed to appear before the learned lower Court on 10‑7‑1986.
A. A.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer