IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.5837 of 2001 Between: Paruchuri Siva Kumar … Petitioner And Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur. 2. Executive Director, K.C.P. Sugars & Industries Corporation Limited, Ramakrishna Building, 183, Annasali, Chennai – 600 006. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.5837 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records and to quash the award passed in I.D. No.201 of 1996 dated 06.06.2000 on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur. The petitioner herein is workman and the 2nd respondent is the Executive Director, K.C.P. Sugars & Industries Corporation Limited. The workman filed I.D. No.201 of 1996 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (For short ‘the Act’) questioning the termination order passed by the 2nd respondent herein. After considering the case of the workman, the Labour Court dismissed the application holding that the applicant is not a workman under the Act and as such, he is not entitled to any relief, as claimed by him. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined with the 2nd respondent Corporation as Assistant Cane Development Officer (Trainee) for a period of two years and on completion of training period, he was appointed as Assistant Cane Development Officer with probationary rights with effect from 01.12.1982. Thereafter, he was re- designated as Cane Development Officer in the year 1992. While he was performing the duties to the entire satisfaction of his superiors, he was issued proceedings dated 02.07.1996 intimating that his services were terminated with effect from 15.07.1996. Aggrieved by the same, he raised industrial dispute, which was dismissed as stated hereinabove. Assailing the same, he filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, workman, submits that the Labour Court had not properly considered the material made available on record and erroneously held that the petitioner does not fall within the meaning of the workman. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. From a perusal of the award, it is very much in detail considering all the facts and circumstances including various circulars, regulations of the respondent’s Corporation and also the appointment order, promotion order and functions of the petitioner and his salary etc., and had rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner was placed in the managerial cadre and he is not a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act. As the said application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner herein does not fall within the meaning of ‘workman’ under the Act, prima facie, before traversing into other merits of the case, it is to be decided whether the Labour Court has rightly considered the issue and whether the petitioner falls within the meaning of ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Act, for which, it is to be seen what the said Section defines: “’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, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person- (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) ; or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an Officer or other employee of a prison ; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercies, 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).” Clause 3 of Section 2(s) of the Act excludes the persons to be treaded as workman who is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity. When the Court below had rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner is placed in the management staff cadre, particularly based on documents Exs.M-35 and Ex.M-38 and the statements of WW.1 and WW.2, it cannot be held that the petitioner is a workman. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court had erroneously held that the petitioner is not a workman cannot be countenanced. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, when the petitioner does not fall within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, it would be futile exercise in going into other merits of the case. Therefore, without touching further merits of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 02.12.2010 LSK