TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (9) TMI 317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution and delay a decision of the real dispute for years, sometimes for over a decade. Industrial peace, one presumes, hangs in the balance in the meanwhile. We have now before us a case where a dispute originating in 1969 and referred for adjudication by the Government to the Labour Court in 1970 is still at the stage of decision on a preliminary objection. There was a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy to decide preliminary issues first. But the time appears to have arrived for a reversal of that policy. We think it is better that tribunals, particularly those entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where delay may lead to misery and jeopardise industrial peace, sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdiction neither the High Court nor this Court is required to be too astute to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by special tribunals at interlocutory stages and on preliminary issues. Having sermonised this much, we may now proceed to state the facts which provoked the sermon. The appellant D.P. Maheshwari was an employee of Toshniwal Brothers Pvt. Ltd., when his services were terminated with effect from 28th July 1969. He raised an industrial dispute and on 3rd July 1970 the Lt. Governor of Delhi referred the dispute for adjudication to the Additional Labour Court Delhi under sections 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute referred for adjudication to the Labour Court was, "Whether the termination ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imant was supervisory or administrative in nature." The Labour Court next referred to what it considered 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'. The name of D.P. Maheshwari was shown in Class-C. After reviewing the entire evidence the Labour Court finally recorded the following finding: "From the above discussion, it is clear that the claimant's evidence shows that he was doing mainly clerical work of maintaining certain registers preparing drafts and seeking instructions from the superiors and respondents&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose recorded by the Labour Court and this, he complained, had been done by an unfair reading of the order of the Labour Court and without the High Court itself considering a single item of evidence or document. We are afraid there is considerable force in Shri Gupta's criticism. Curiously enough, the Learned Single Judge of the High Court affirmed the finding of the Labour Court that D.P. Maheshwari was not employed in a supervisory capacity. He said, "In the face of this material and the admitted hypothesis the conclusion that the respondent was not mainly employed in a supervisory capacity is certainly a possible conclusion that may be arrived at by any Tribunal duly instructed in the law as to the manner in which the status of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... workman was discharging duties of a clerical nature. The Division Bench which affirmed the judgment of the Learned Single Judge also read the judgment of the Labour Court in a similar unfair fashion and observed." It is no doubt true that the Labour Court held that the appellant's evidence showed that he was doing mainly clerical work. As we read the order as a whole it appears that in arriving at this conclusion the Labour Court was greatly influenced by the fact that the appellant was not employed in a supervisory capacity." We have already pointed out that the Labour Court did not infer that the appellant was discharging duties of a clerical nature from the mere circumstance that he was not discharging supervisory function....