At, Supreme Court of India
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is against the order of the Bombay High Court dated 17th December, 2015 passed in Writ Petition No.483 of 2013. By the said order, the High Court has set aside the order of the Labour Court dismissing the reference on the ground that the respondent is not a workman. The High Court by the impugned judgment has remanded the matter to the Labour Court for a de novo consideration.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard the respondent who appears in person.
4. The Labour Court in coming to its conclusion, as above, had relied upon Exhibit 41 and Exhibit 48 and also the admission of the respondent that he was in mangerial grade 9 and earning a salary of Rs.13,000/- per month. We have considered the contents of Exhibit 41 and Exhibit 48. Exhibit 48 is a letter of the respondent claiming high responsibility in the managerial cadre in view of the successful handling of the responsibilities given to him. We have also considered the termination letter dated 6th September, 1998 at the insistence of the respondent. A reading of the said termination letter would go to show that the respondent was initially appointed as a Trainee Service Engineer to be groomed for a managerial position and that he was put in managerial grade D-110 on 1st May, 1987 and promoted to managerial cadre grade-120 with effect from 1st May, 1992.
5. In view of the overwhelming evidence on record, we do not see how the High Court could have come to a conclusion different from what had been recorded by the Labour Court. We, therefore, interfere with the order of the High Court an
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
d restore the order passed by the Labour Court holding the respondent not to be a workman. 6. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside.