1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:18.08.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR WP(MD)No.9299 of 2011 T.Gomathinayagam :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, District Court Campus, Melur Road, Madurai-20. 2.The Management, Sri Sudarsan Bricks, 14, Gokale Road, Madurai -2. :Respondents Prayer:Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus call for the records of the 1st respondent in I.D.139/2002 and quash the award dated 5.5.2011 passed in I.D.139/2002. For Petitioner :Mr.T.Ravichandran For Respondents:Mr.S.Chandrasekar,Government Advocate ORDER Writ of certiorari is sought for, to quash the order of the first respondent, made in I.D.No.139 of 2002, dated 05.05.2011. 2.The main ground of attack is that though the petitioner has been given the designation as supervisor, he was not assigned with any supervisory work nor had any power of control, on others. No materials were also filed by the second respondent Management to prove that the petitioner was a supervisor, at the time of termination and therefore, he falls within the definition of workman, as per Section 2(s) of the I.D Act, 1947. Though the petitioner has assailed the correctness of the order made in I.D.No.139 of 2002 on other grounds, this Court is not inclined to advert to the same. 3.Perusal of the impugned order shows that though both the parties were not examined, the petitioner has categorically admitted that he was drawing monthly salary more than Rs.1,600/-. The Labour Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, found that the petitioner was working as a Supervisor in the respondent Management, and was drawing more than Rs.4,000/- per month as salary. Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 defines the workman as follows; “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, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 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, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person.” Section 2(s)(iv) of the I.D. Act, 1947 reads as follows: “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.” Though the petitioner has contended that he is not doing any supervisory work, and mere designation will not oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the dispute, the fact remains that he has not let in any evidence to prove that he is not doing any supervisory work. But the petitioner who claims to be a workman, has failed to let in evidence, and in such circumstances, the decision of the Labour Court cannot be said to be manifestly illegal, warranting interference. 4.In view of the above statutory provision, the claim of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. There is no material irregularity in the impugned order. 5.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, District Court Campus, Melur Road, Madurai-20. 2.The Management, Sri Sudarsan Bricks, 14, Gokale Road, Madurai -2. +1CC to Mr.T.Ravichandran, Advocate. SR.No.28390. Vs W.P.(MD)No.9299 of 2011 RP/07.09.2011/2P/4C. 18.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/