IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14489 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision:13.05.2011 Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur ...Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate, for the petitioners None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The only point for consideration in the writ petition is whether a Legal Advisor to the Management could invoke the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act treating himself as a workman and complaining of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Management's contention was rejected by the Labour Court and it had directed reinstatement holding that there had been a violation of Section 25-F. This order had been challenged before this Court and it was stayed at the time when notice was issued on 13.11.1990. Counsel for the petitioner states that the stay order is still in force. 2. The point relating to the status of the Legal Assistant was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muir Mills Unit of NTC Civil Writ Petition No.14489 of 1990 (O&M) - 2 - (U.P.) Limited Versus Swayam Prakash Srivastava and another-(2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 491 that posed the question of the status of a Legal Assistant as an issue for consideration and the Court answered in para 32 that the perusal of the job profile of the Legal Assistant and the examination of the UP Industrial Disputes Act under Section 2(z) showed that he did not fall in the category of 'workman'. In a still earlier judgment in Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited Versus Ajit Singh-(2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 232, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with an employee, who rendered legal opinions and also used to draft pleadings on behalf of the Management and represent before Courts or authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that such a job would not make him a 'workman'. I will not say as a rule of thumb that wherever a moniker of Legal Advisor or Assistant is used, he could not be a workman, but an activity which is in the nature of rendering an advice to the Management on legal issues cannot be an activity that a 'workman' as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act can perform. A Legal Advisor is even on a higher status than a Legal Assistant making some preparations for pleadings and memorials on behalf of the Management. The petitioner could not have treated himself as a workman to claim the benefit under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The award of the Tribunal made on such basis is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the award is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 13.05.2011 sanjeev