1971 PLC 61 (PLP)

The case of the first party is that he was, serving in the company of the second party since 5 ‑7‑68 as a permanent worker, Bitching Department. On 20‑1‑70 he received a letter dated 8‑1‑70 in a registered cover signed by the Managing Director of the second party terminating his services with effect from g‑1‑70 on the ground of 'inefficient work. The second party based this inefficient work on the basis of three alleged show‑cause notices served on 8‑3‑69, 3‑4‑69 and 11‑6‑69 for intentional use of disproportionate water in emulcification. In fact the petitioner was never issued any show‑cause notice but he showed cause only once on 10‑3‑69 which was ultimately withdrawn as allegations proved false. The allegation that there was intentional use of disproportionate water in emulcification is false. The letter of termination is illegal and void. His prayer is for directing the second party for re‑instating him to his former post with all back wages. The second party entered into appearance and filed written statement in which it was denied that the first party was ‑ a workman. On the other hand, it was stated that he was a member of the managerial and administrative staff as he was designated an Overseer on a starting salary of Rs. 500.00 per month. He was a departmental head in the Batching Department. His functions have been stated in his appointment letter. As such, this petition is not maintainable and this should be dismissed with costs. Points for determination in the present case are (1) Whether the first party is a 'worker under the Act? (2) What relief, if any, is the first party entitled to? Both the points are taken up together for decision for the sake of convenient discussion. It was stated by' the second party that the first party was trot a workman but a member of the managerial and administrative staff with the designation of Overseer and that by nature 'of the duties attached to and the power vested in him were exclusively of managerial as well as administrative he was performing functions of a managerial and administrative staff. It was argued by the first party that though he was called an Overseer, he is a worker, as he has to do his work himself. It was then sub mitted that he could at best be termed as a skilled worker and therefore, only because of the designation `Overseer' he cannot be termed as a Manager under the provision of the Act. As about this, the first party produced 3 documents 2 of which are certificates by the Mill Manager and Assistant Manager. These certificates dated 7‑1‑70 and 8‑1‑70 respectively show that the first party was certified to be a hard working and sincere worker. The third document, dated 8‑1‑70 is the order of termination issued by the Managing Director who, among others stated, the allegations and further alleged that the first party was inefficient in his‑ works. It was submitted that the first party was act only a worker but he was hard working and sincere in the discharge of his duties and that the allegations brought by the Managing Director were motivated and false. It was pointed out that as the Manager and the Assistant Manager were nearer than that ‑ of the Managing Director, their certificate on the point of efficiency and sincerity of the first party was more valid than the. allegations brought by the Managing Director. It was further stated that the. Managing Director did not conduct any enquiry or investigation into the matter and did not give any opportunity to the first party to answer the allegations, etc. The allegations were not proved in any enquiry. Now the order of termination is quite clear on the point that the services of .the first party were terminated and working on this letter the second party should have given termination benefits to the first party. But it has been alleged that he has not been given any termination benefits. This was illegal even according to the assertion of the second party. The second party had a right to terminate the services of the first party by giving him termination benefits. The main point of contention in the present case is whether the first party, is a `worker' or not. On this point it has been asserted by the first party, that he is a worker, as he has to do his work with his own hand that he was a skilled worker. It' has been pointed out from the termination notice itself that the first party was responsible for emulsification. This snows that he was doing his work with his own hand. So he may be called as a skilled worker. Skilled worker comes within the purview of the Act and should get the benefits as provided in the Act. Therefore, agreeing with the opinion of the Members I decide that. the first party should be given the, termination benefits. Accordingly, it is ordered that the second party shall pay full termination benefits to the first party and the amount shall be calculated and deposited by the second party in Court to the credit of the first party within thirty days from the date of this order.