TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e paid compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu of back wages, while upholding the finding of the Labour Court that the employee falls under the definition of "workman" as given in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 For short, "the I.D. Act". 3. Feeling aggrieved and being dissatisfied with the respective portion of the impugned order of the High Court, both the parties have preferred the instant appeals. 4. A few facts which are necessary for disposal of both the appeals, are as follows: The management is a newspaper establishment publishing a daily newspaper in English viz., New Indian Express having its publication unit at Bhubaneswar. The employee was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Electronics and Communication) For short, "E&C" by the management on 07.06.1997 and was subsequently, confirmed in the said post on 13.07.1998. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (E&C) with effect from 01.05.2000 and was regularised in the said post with effect from 01.05.2001. While so, he was relieved from service on 08.10.2003, by paying a sum of Rs.6,995.65 towards one month salary in lieu of notice. Aggrieved by the same, he approached the Labou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(s) of the I.D. Act is the nature of work done by him and not merely on the designation of his post Shard Kumar v. NCT of Delhi, (2002) 4 SCC 490. Whether or not an employee is a "workman" under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act is required to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties and functions; and the designation of an employee is not of much importance and what is important is the nature of duties being performed by the employee S. K. Maini v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd, (1994) 3 SCC 510; (iv) Merely having a junior does not make an employee a supervisor or managerial cadre Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd v. Workmen, (1970) 3 SCC 248; and (v) In cases of wrongful / illegal termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324; and since the order of termination is void ab initio, the workman is entitled to full back wages Jasmer Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 458. By making the above submissions, the learned counsel prayed to allow the appeal filed by the employee and dismiss the appeal filed by the management and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the light of the rules of the company and the terms of the employment orders, the management relieved the employee from duty by paying one month salary in lieu of notice on 08.10.2003, which was accepted and also encashed by the employee. Hence, there is no procedural violation of law on the part of the management in terminating the services of the employee. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the order of the High Court setting aside the award of the Labour Court to the extent of reinstating the employee with compensation in lieu of back wages, requires no interference by this Court. 9. We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for both parties and carefully perused the materials on record. 10. At the outset, it is pertinent to point out that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was enacted by the legislature to settle the industrial disputes. It was brought with the object to ensure social justice to both the employers and employees and advance the progress of industry by bringing about the existence of harmony and cordial relationship between the parties. 11. Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act defines "workman", whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kmen". To prove their respective claims, the employee and the Senior Manager of the management were examined as W.W.1 and M.W.1; and Exts.W1 to W5 and Exts.A to D were marked before the Labour Court. 13. Evidently, the employee was appointed as Junior Engineer (E&C) with effect from 07.06.1997 under Group 3 (Admn) with a salary of Rs.4761.75 per month. Clause 14 of the appointment order issued by the management makes it clear that after confirmation of the job, the termination of service will be by one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice by either side. It is not in dispute that the posting of the employee in the cadre of Junior Engineer was confirmed with effect from 07.06.1998 vide letter dated 13.07.1998. As per the letter dated 25.05.2000 of the management, the employee was promoted as Assistant Engineer (E&C) in Group 2A (Admn) with effect from 01.05.2000 and his revised salary was Rs.6008.79 per month. The services of the employee as Assistant Engineer were confirmed with effect from 01.05.2001 vide letter dated 30.04.2001 and it was categorically stated in the said letter that all other terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment order dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of post-amended section 2(s), is liable to be set aside. 17. As regards the grant of reinstatement of the employee in service and payment of compensation in lieu of back wages by the Labour Court, it appears to us that in terms of clause 14 of the appointment letter, the employee was required to be paid one month salary in lieu of notice. As is evident from the letter dated 08.10.2003 of the management, the employee was relieved from duty with effect from that date; and he was issued with a cheque bearing No.019345 for Rs.6995.85 drawn on UT1 Bank Ltd, Bhubaneswar, towards one month salary in lieu of notice, as per the rules of company and in terms of clause 14 of the appointment order issued by the management. It is an admitted fact that without any objection, the employee accepted the said cheque and encashed the same. Hence, there is no violation of procedure on the part of the management in terminating the services of the employee. As already held above, the employee is not a "workman" as covered under section 2(s) and hence, the provisions of the I.D. Act do not apply to him. Resultantly, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the employee qua violation of se....