Case: S.H. Motor Transport Company Vs. Motilal &amp; Others

the provident fund. On the other hand, workmen used to get only ten days leave in a year and were not entitled to the benefit of the provident fund prior to 1948. The attendance register of the supervisory staff was separate from that of workmen. He was not required to take a token only workmen were given token. His attendance was noted in the register of supervisors. He had given an application to the Regional Conciliation Officer and in that application the plaintiff company itself had objected that the defendant was not a workman and therefore the Regional Conciliation Officer had no jurisdiction. Thus it was clear in that case that the nature of duties performed by the shift foreman were far superior where a certain amount of independence of action and initiative was contemplated and he could not be called a "workman". Reliance was placed on two more decisions, (1) Indamer Company (Private) Ltd. v. Barin De, 1958-2 Lab LJ 556 (First Labour Court, W. B.) and (2) Malbar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal., Trivandrum, 1958-2 Lab LJ 722 : (AIR 1958 Ker 202 ). In the latter case, again, there was no indication what were the kind of duties required to be performed. In the case of an aircraft maintenance engineer (1958-2 Lab LJ 556) it was found that his duties were to inspect the aircraft and aero-engines before the flight and to issue a certificate of airworthiness and where their duties mainly consisted of inspecting and checking the jobs and repairs done by skilled mechanics who worked under them, those duties were essentially of a supervisory nature.11. In our opinion, these cases do not lay down any principle. The principle, however, seems to be well settled. It is not the designation by which a person is known in the employment which would be determinative of the question whether the duties are supervisory in character. Again the mere fact that in the course of duties some manual or clerical work is required to be done will not be also a decisive factor. What has to be seen is whether the person who claims to be employed is a supervisory capacity has to exercise any independent judgment or initiative, or has any independence of action, or where he is concerned with the work of other persons, he has any authority to direct or control the work of such other persons. It must always happen that in an industry or an undertaking or a plant or activities of a commercial nature, there has necessarily to be a co-ordination between several activities of several workmen. The mere fact that the work of. one person is required to be checked by another will not make that other person, who is so required to check the work, a supervisor in the sense of a superior officer. Every kind of check does not imply an authority in the checker either to direct or control the person whose work is being checked. The work of a touring auditor, for instance, who has to prepare reports after visiting depots and checking and calculating figures etc. is not the work of a supervisor or a person in a superior capacity; National Tobacco Co. of India v. G.P. Sarathi; (1954) 1 Lab LJ 160 (L. A. T. Cal). Unless a person occupies a position of command or direction and is authorised to act without the sanction of the manager or other supervisors, such person will not be treated as a supervisor or acting in a supervisory capacity.(Eurmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. Madras v. Their Employees, (1954) 1 Lab LJ 21 (L. A. T. Lucknow). A depot superintendent, or an assistant depot superintendent employed by an oil. distributing and marketing company who are responsible for stock receipts, storage and issue of stocks and also for compiling the companys standard forms and returns, have been held to be "workmen" within the meaning of S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central). As they have no power to punish clerks and have no initiative and have to work on instructions from the others., they have been held to be merely workmen : Bunnah Shell Oil Co. v. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, 1954-2 Lab LJ 155 (Mad). Similarly, a timekeeper; who does not exercise any supervisory control over the workers but whose duties are confined merely to checking the arrivals and departures of the workmen which are purely of a clerical nature, has been held to be a workman (East India Industries (Madras) Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal Madras, 1954-2 Lab LJ 418 (Mad)).12. Thus it is clear that in the instant case, except the statement of Naidu that in case a ticket is not issued to any passenger a checker can instruct the conductor to issue ticket, there is no suggestion of any kind that a checker in this organization has any superior or supervisory duties or any degree of control over the conductors. Principally the duties are both of a clerical and manual character. He is to check whether passengers are covered, with tickets, whether the memo sheets tally with the number of passengers and their distances as he, finds them on checking in the running bus and whether tickets have been issued to all who are travelling. We do not think any of these duties call either for initiative or independent action or indicate that a checker exercises any degree of control or direction over the acts of the conductors. In fact, Naidu has admitted that whatever is the finding of the checker he has to report it to the manager and he cannot give any direction or order to a conductor. If that is the sphere of the duties, it can hardly be contended that a checker is a supervisor in any sense of the term. We must, therefore hold that the finding that the Respondent No. 1 was an employee is correct and the petitioner could not successfully challenge the order.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We have heard the parties on the preliminary objection as well as on merits and, in our opinion, there is considerable force in this preliminary objection raised on behalf of respondent No. 1, though we have not preferred to dismiss the petition upholding only the preliminary objection.The petitioner has stated in paragraph 5 of the petition that the State Industrial Court had set aside the order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 4th August 1960, by its order dated 19th September1961. It is now admitted that this is not true. The order of the Additional District Magistrate directing reinstatement and payment of back wages onhas never been set aside. The petitioner has also not made any reference to the second order of interim remand passed by the State Industrial Court onas it is now clear and no longer disputed by the petitionerthe State Industrial Court never finally decided the revision application until it was disposed of by its order datedDuring pendency of the revision applications at the request of the petitioner himself, the State Industrial Court seems to have been persuaded to remit the matter twice to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour to give an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence and to record a clear finding as to whether Motilal was an "employee" within the meaning of the "C.P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act 1947, All along the State Industrial Court was in seisin of the case and what was required to be done by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was to record a finding after recording evidence of both, sides. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour in fact, submitted his findings on both the occasions. Somehow the petitioner either has not realised the relevance and importance of these facts or has deliberately omitted to refer to them in the petition. The result of these omissions and an entirely untrue statement that the order of the Additional District Magistrate datedwas set aside is that the petitioner purported to represent to this Court in the petition that there was no order of reinstatement or payment of back wages, that the only finding that was recorded was that Motilal was an employee and yet the State Industrial Court had dismissed the revision application which had the effect of making the petitioner liable for back wages as well as reinstatement of Respondent No. 1. We cannot but express too strongly oar disapprobation of the utter lack of care and, therefore, bona fides displayed by the petitioner in this case in reciting the sequence of events as they took place when the proceedings were going on in the lower courts and in representing to this Court that the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was set aside. We fail to see how any one having participated in the proceedings or having before him the copies of the orders of the various authorities could at all represent to this Court that the order of the Additional District Magistrate was set aside. By no process of thinking or interpretation it could be said that there is any indication in the orders of any authorities that the order of the Additional District Magistrate was ever set aside or even put in suspense. We would have been justified in dismissing this petition upholding the preliminary objection on this short ground. Petitioners who invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution are required to exercise utmost care, inform themselves fully of every stage of the proceeding that has taken place upto the date the petition is filed, give a full and true account of those proceedings, file all the necessary documents in support of their averments and then claim relief on the basis of facts disclosed in the petition. It is not open to a petitioner under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution to pick and choose his own facts or to determine in advance what is relevant and material., omit to mention all material facts and proceedings and orders and then claim that he has acted bona fide even though he has made untrue statements, omitted to inform the Court of all the proceedings and the orders passed at different stages in the proceedings upto date and claim indulgence.8. However, in our opinion, even on merits the petitioner has no legs to stand upon and the petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the findings recorded by the two courts below.In our opinion the evidence on record fully justified the finding that Respondent No. 1 Motilal, who was a checker, was a person who came squarely within the definition of "employee" within the meaning of S. 2(10) of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947.The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to certain decisions of Industrial Tribunals and Courts. In A.R. Nataraja Ayyar v. Trichy Srirangam Transport Co. Ltd.Lab LJ 608, (I.T. Madurai), the Industrial Tribunal, Madurai had to consider whether a checking inspector employed by a bus transport company was a "workman" within the meaning of S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central).The definition of a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, prior to its amendment in 1956, was analogous to the definition of "employee" in Sec. 2(10) of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947.The Tribunal found on the evidence in that case that a checking inspector employed by a bus transport company exercised a limited supervision over conductors and drivers; he had to check the work of the conductors and drivers and had authority to issue warnings to conductors and drivers for minor offences. In the circumstances the checking inspector was held as not to be a "workman" within the meaning of S. 2(s) of the Act (Central). We do not see how this case is of any assistance to the petitioner in view of the clear finding of the Tribunal in that case that the checking inspector there had authority to issue warnings to conductors and drivers and also did supervision over the work of such conductors and drivers. Thus the supervisory nature of his duties was clearly found in that case and in view of that finding, a checking inspector would be outside the definition of a "workman" under S. 2(3) of the (Central) Industrial Disputes Act. Reference was also invited to a decision of the Kerala High Court in Malbar Industrial Co. v. Industrial Tribunal Trivandrum, AIR 1955 Ker 326. The report does not indicate what was the nature of duties, or work done, and it is not, therefore possible to deduce any principle from this case. The Upper India Coupar Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. J.C. Mathur; AIR 1950, All 064 was tin case of a shift foreman of the Soda Recovery Plant and the finding was that the main work of the defendant was that of a supervisor and merely because in connection with that work he was required to do some writing work, that would not convert him into a clerk. In paragraph 8, at page 66, it has been observed that in the capacity of a shift foreman his duty was to supervise the work of a number of workmen though no manual or clerical work was entrusted to him. As a supervisor he was given 30 days privilege leave in a year and was also as such entitled to the membership of the provident fund. On the other hand, workmen used to get only ten days leave in a year and were not entitled to the benefit of the provident fund prior to 1948. The attendance register of the supervisory staff was separate from that of workmen. He was not required to take a token only workmen were given token. His attendance was noted in the register of supervisors. He had given an application to the Regional Conciliation Officer and in that application the plaintiff company itself had objected that the defendant was not a workman and therefore the Regional Conciliation Officer had no jurisdiction. Thus it was clear in that case that the nature of duties performed by the shift foreman were far superior where a certain amount of independence of action and initiative was contemplated and he could not be called a "workman". Reliance was placed on two more decisions, (1) Indamer Company (Private) Ltd. v. Barin De,Lab LJ 556 (First Labour Court, W. B.) and (2) Malbar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal., Trivandrum,Lab LJ 722 : (AIR 1958 Ker 202  ). In the latter case, again, there was no indication what were the kind of duties required to be performed. In the case of an aircraft maintenance engineerLab LJ 556) it was found that his duties were to inspect the aircraft andbefore the flight and to issue a certificate of airworthiness and where their duties mainly consisted of inspecting and checking the jobs and repairs done by skilled mechanics who worked under them, those duties were essentially of a supervisory nature.11. In our opinion, these cases do not lay down any principle. The principle, however, seems to be well settled. It is not the designation by which a person is known in the employment which would be determinative of the question whether the duties are supervisory in character. Again the mere fact that in the course of duties some manual or clerical work is required to be done will not be also a decisive factor. What has to be seen is whether the person who claims to be employed is a supervisory capacity has to exercise any independent judgment or initiative, or has any independence of action, or where he is concerned with the work of other persons, he has any authority to direct or control the work of such other persons. It must always happen that in an industry or an undertaking or a plant or activities of a commercial nature, there has necessarily to be abetween several activities of several workmen. The mere fact that the work of. one person is required to be checked by another will not make that other person, who is so required to check the work, a supervisor in the sense of a superior officer. Every kind of check does not imply an authority in the checker either to direct or control the person whose work is being checked. The work of a touring auditor, for instance, who has to prepare reports after visiting depots and checking and calculating figures etc. is not the work of a supervisor or a person in a superior capacity; National Tobacco Co. of India v. G.P. Sarathi; (1954) 1 Lab LJ 160 (L. A. T. Cal). Unless a person occupies a position of command or direction and is authorised to act without the sanction of the manager or other supervisors, such person will not be treated as a supervisor or acting in a supervisory capacity.(Eurmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. Madras v. Their Employees, (1954) 1 Lab LJ 21 (L. A. T. Lucknow). A depot superintendent, or an assistant depot superintendent employed by an oil. distributing and marketing company who are responsible for stock receipts, storage and issue of stocks and also for compiling the companys standard forms and returns, have been held to be "workmen" within the meaning of S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central). As they have no power to punish clerks and have no initiative and have to work on instructions from the others., they have been held to be merely workmen : Bunnah Shell Oil Co. v. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India,Lab LJ 155 (Mad). Similarly, a timekeeper; who does not exercise any supervisory control over the workers but whose duties are confined merely to checking the arrivals and departures of the workmen which are purely of a clerical nature, has been held to be a workman (East India Industries (Madras) Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal Madras,Lab LJ 418 (Mad)).12. Thus it is clear that in the instant case, except the statement of Naidu that in case a ticket is not issued to any passenger a checker can instruct the conductor to issue ticket, there is no suggestion of any kind that a checker in this organization has any superior or supervisory duties or any degree of control over the conductors. Principally the duties are both of a clerical and manual character. He is to check whether passengers are covered, with tickets, whether the memo sheets tally with the number of passengers and their distances as he, finds them on checking in the running bus and whether tickets have been issued to all who are travelling. We do not think any of these duties call either for initiative or independent action or indicate that a checker exercises any degree of control or direction over the acts of the conductors. In fact, Naidu has admitted that whatever is the finding of the checker he has to report it to the manager and he cannot give any direction or order to a conductor. If that is the sphere of the duties, it can hardly be contended that a checker is a supervisor in any sense of the term. We must, therefore hold that the finding that the Respondent No. 1 was an employee is correct and the petitioner could not successfully challenge the order.