1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 4980 of 2008 (Chandrashekhar Chintaman Vaidya Vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. Akola.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 27 th November, 2008 By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Labour Court, Akola, on 2nd August, 2006, dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act 1971, on the ground that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner also impugns the order passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal, on 26/6/2008 in Revision (ULPA) No. 116/2006 which confirms the judgment passed by the Labour Court on 2/8/2006. Shri Ashutosh Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Labour Court, Akola, could not have 2 held that the petitioner was not a “Workman” within the meaning of the term under the Industrial Disputes Act, by merely relying on the cross-examination of the petitioner himself when the respondents had not examined any witness to prove their case that the petitioner was not a “Workman”. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Labour Court had erroneously placed the burden on the petitioner to prove that he was a “Workman” when the burden heavily and absolutely lay on the respondents to prove that the petitioner is not a “Workman” as the said case was tried to be made out by the respondents by the reply to the application filed by the petitioner under Section 30(2) of the Act of 1971. It is on behalf of the petitioner that the reply to the application under Section 30(2) of the Act of 1971 was treated to be the written statement of the respondent and on the basis of the said reply and certain admissions of the petitioner in his cross-examination, the Labour Court erroneously came to a conclusion that the petitioner was not a “Workman”. The learned 3 counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the nature of the duty which is the deciding factor for considering this issue and the Labour Court had lost sight of this fact. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the Courts have wrongly held that the complaint filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and perused both the impugned orders. I have also perused the evidence of the petitioner, specially, his evidence in the cross-examination. On an appreciation of the evidence of the petitioner in his cross-examination, both the Courts have held that the petitioner was not a “Workman” within the meaning of the term under Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The findings recorded by both the Courts on the issue of tenability of the complaint are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The petitioner had clearly admitted in his cross-examination, in fact, he had volunteered in his cross-examination, that he was appointed as a Supervisor. He had further 4 admitted in his cross-examination that there was supervisory and non-supervisory staff in the respondent-Company and Mr. Agrawal, Mr. Kulkarni , Mr. Mangrulkar, Mr. Shetti and the petitioner himself were falling in the supervisory staff. He further admitted that the Attendant Sheets for the month of April, 2003 at Exh.32 and 33 bore his signatures and in these Attendant Sheets, the employees of the supervisory and non-supervisory staff were separately shown. He then admitted that he was a Supervisor and Mr. Agrawal was the Engineer. He also admitted in his cross- examination that the Gate-passes were issued to the non-supervisory staff and on some rare occasions, he had issued Gate-passes to the non-supervisory staff. He also admitted in his cross-examination that a Supervisor belongs to the managerial cadre. There were certain other admissions in his cross-examination which were also considered by both the Courts to hold that the petitioner is not a “Workman” within the meaning of the term under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. In view of these clear admissions in the cross- 5 examination, the judgment reported in 2002(1) Mh.L.J . 1 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. So also, the judgment reported in 2000(3) Mh.L.J . 404 is not applicable to the facts of the case. It is true that a burden to prove that a person was a workman lies on the person who disputes the character of the person, in an industrial reference. Though in this case, the Labour Court had placed the burden on the petitioner, that would have no bearing on the matter for deciding the correctness of the orders passed by both the Courts. The question of the respondent proving this fact would have arisen at the subsequent stage in case the petitioner had not admitted in his cross-examination that he was a Supervisor and if it was not borne out from his cross-examination that he worked as a Supervisor. When a party admits the plea raised by the another, it would not be necessary for the party raising the plea to prove that fact, in view of the admission of the other party. In this case, as rightly held by both the Courts, the evidence of the petitioner itself was enough to prove that the petitioner was not a 6 “Workman” within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, there was no reason for the respondent to tender evidence on that issue. The orders passed by the Labour as well as Industrial Court do not suffer from any error much less a jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP