M/S Pepsico India Holding Pvt Ltd vs Krishna Kant Pandey

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent was appointed on the post of Operator/Technician Grade III for six months on probation basis w.e.f. 13th of March, 1995 against the salary of Rs. 2600/- per month. Having been found his services satisfactory, he was confirmed w.e.f. 13th September, 1995 and was also awarded one increment w.e.f. 1st of February, 1996. Earlier, he was appointed in the Plant of Jainpur (Kanpur Dehat) from where he was transferred to Sathariya Plant, District Jaunpur, U.P. on 30th of August, 1996 on the revised pay scale i.e. Rs. 5450/-. Pursuant to the subsequent transfer order, he was posted at Lucknow in the month of June, 1997 and till 2000 he was awarded annual increments at the rate of Rs.490/-. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Line Supervisor in the pay scale of Rs.7716/- and thereafter to the post of Fleet Executive.

4. It is the case of the respondent that being posted as a Fleet Executive, he was to discharge the mechanical work and that being so, he was called as skilled workman. It is stated that no other staff was posted in his subordination. The respondent also pointed out the conduct of the employer transferring him from one place to another and also compelling him to resign from the post or to be on long leave. On being asked to proceed on leave, respondent remained on leave w.e.f. 9th October, 2003 to 17th October, 2003. When he turned up, he was not permitted to join for want of instructions of the superior authorities. Thereafter, respondent wrote a letter on 8th November, 2003 to the Vice President seeking guidance for further action, upon which the employer became unhappy and terminated his services on 14th of November, 2003 by giving one month's salary in lieu of notice prior to termination.

5. Aggrieved by the said termination, respondent preferred a reference before the Conciliation Officer, Lucknow alleging that he is a 'workman' within the meaning of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and termination of his services by the Company is contrary to Section 6 of the Act. The appellant Company pleaded that the respondent did not satisfy the criteria of a workman as defined under Section 2(z) of the Act. The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the reference stating that the respondent is not a workman under Section 2(z) of the Act and, therefore, no challenge to the termination is maintainable before the Tribunal.

9. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and considered the relevant facts and the law applicable thereto. The admitted facts are that at the relevant time, the respondent was working as a Fleet Supervisor and drawing a salary of Rs. 7716/-. Initially, he was appointed as a technician Grade-III in 1995 on the salary of Rs. 2600/- per month and after getting increment his salary was increased. By giving one month's salary, in lieu of the notice, his services were terminated.

11. On the basis of the findings based on elaborate discussions and analyzing the evidence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that at the relevant time the respondent was working as a Fleet Executive which is supervisory in nature and does not fall within the definition of 'labour' as defined under Section 2(z) of the Act. Hence, he is not entitled to any relief. The respondent challenged the aforesaid award passed by the Labour Court in a writ petition before the High Court. After considering the definition contained in Section 2(z) of the Act and the nature of work assigned to the respondent, the High Court arrived at a conclusion that the nature of work prevalent on the date of termination was as that of a workman. Curiously enough, though the respondent did not come under the definition of workman under Section 2(z) of the Act, the High Court proceeded on the basis that the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was enacted in 1947 and although the respondent cannot be held to be a workman under the said definition, held that he shall have to be classified as a workman and directed the Government to make amendment in Section 2(z) of the Act excluding some of the clauses. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the order is quoted hereinbelow:-

Since the present petitioner has been classified by this court, as above, under the definition of "workman" the order impugned dated 24th of August, 2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal II, State of U. P., Lucknow is hereby quashed with the direction to the Tribunal to proceed with the adjudication case No. 82/2004 to adjudicate upon it on merit."

18. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and restore the order passed by the Tribunal. However, we give liberty to the respondent to move the appropriate forum to challenge, in accordance with law, the order of termination passed by the appellant.