1983 (9) TMI 318 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Development Officer is a 'workman' u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. Whether the reference made by the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal was maintainable.
3. Whether the dismissal of the Development Officer was justified.

Summary:

1. Whether the Development Officer is a 'workman' u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act:
The Industrial Tribunal ruled that Development Officers in the Life Insurance Corporation of India are not workmen within the meaning of S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that the definition of 'workman' is broad and designed to cover all manner of persons employed in an industry, excluding only those in managerial or administrative capacities. The Court noted that the duties of a Development Officer, as outlined in the terms of employment, do not involve any administrative or managerial work. The Development Officer's role is primarily to organize and develop the business, recruit and train agents, and provide post-sale services without any authority to bind the Corporation or supervise the agents. Thus, the Court concluded that the Development Officer is indeed a workman within the meaning of S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2. Whether the reference made by the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal was maintainable:
The Supreme Court criticized the practice of public sector corporations raising preliminary objections to avoid adjudication on merits. The Court expected public sector corporations to be model employers and litigants, refraining from raising needless objections and indulging in luxurious litigation. The Court set aside the Industrial Tribunal's order and the High Court's judgment, remitting the matter back to the Industrial Tribunal for disposal according to law.

3. Whether the dismissal of the Development Officer was justified:
The Supreme Court did not directly address the justification of the dismissal in this judgment. Instead, it focused on the preliminary issue of whether the Development Officer is a workman and the maintainability of the reference. The matter was remitted to the Industrial Tribunal for disposal according to law, with an expectation to resolve the reference within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Industrial Tribunal's order and the High Court's judgment, and remitted the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for disposal according to law. The respondent workman was entitled to his costs.