CWP No.3832 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3832 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on : 04-03-2011 Sunil Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS M/s DLF Universal Ltd. and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Madan Gopal , Advocate for the petitioner MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner impugns the award dated 31.7.2009. He raised a demand under Section 10(1)(c ) of the Industrial Disputes Act which was referred by the appropriate Government to the Tribunal which framed the following issues while determining the controversy:- 1. whether termination of services of the workman is justified or not? If so, its effect? OPW 2. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages? OPW 3. Relief. The reference was declined which has been impugned herein. While assailing the findings of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the award is erroneous as no issue was struck on the issue whether the petitioner performed supervisory functions or not. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted. According to the own showing of the petitioner he was appointed as Supervisor. He at no stage of CWP No.3832 of 2011 (O&M) 2 the proceedings produced any material to show that even though his post was designated as Supervisor yet he was performing such duties which may bring him within the ambit of a workman under Section 2(s)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act which is extracted herebelow:- “2(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, dischasrge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-- (i) x x x x; or (ii) x x x x ; or (iii) x x x x ; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature. Once, the petitioner himself pleads that he is a Supervisor and in the absence of any material to show that he was performing duties which are not supervisory in nature, there is no infirmity committed by the Tribunal. A mere fact that specific issue was not framed would not create CWP No.3832 of 2011 (O&M) 3 any difference to the situation for the simple reason that the proceedings before the Tribunal are in the nature of inquiry and procedure of CPC or civil jurisprudence would not apply to it and further the parties were alive to the controversy No ground to interfere. Dismissed. March 4, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge