Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti & Anr. Vs. Hira Lal
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2222 of 1998
Petitioner: Vikas Adhikari Panchayat Samiti & Anr.
Respondent: Hira Lal
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2222 of 1998
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 20, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 2 – Government servant – If a workman in an industry and should approach Labour Court or Tribunal. Held that question will have to be examined on the facts of each case. Going into that question, refused. Award, however, modified by reducing back wages by 50%.
(Paras 2, 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. R.N.A. Britto v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors. (JT 1995 (8) SC 563)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants attacked the order under appeal by raising the question whether the respondent is a workman working in an industry and whether he should approach the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. We do not think that such an issue should be examined. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in R.N.A. Britto v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors. (JT 1995 (8) SC 563 = 1995 (4) SCC 8). The question whether a government servant should also be a workman will have to be examined on the facts of each case. As such a question has not been raised specifically before the High Court, we refuse to go into it. No other point is urged.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we think it is appropriate to modify the award made by the Labour Court to the extent of reducing it to back wages awarded by 50% . It is submitted by Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, learned Counsel, that the post of Octroi Nakedar has been abolished. If that is so, the respondent may be fitted in any other equivalent post. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants attacked the order under appeal by raising the question whether the respondent is a workman working in an industry and whether he should approach the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. We do not think that such an issue should be examined. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in R.N.A. Britto v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors. (JT 1995 (8) SC 563 = 1995 (4) SCC 8). The question whether a government servant should also be a workman will have to be examined on the facts of each case. As such a question has not been raised specifically before the High Court, we refuse to go into it. No other point is urged.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we think it is appropriate to modify the award made by the Labour Court to the extent of reducing it to back wages awarded by 50% . It is submitted by Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, learned Counsel, that the post of Octroi Nakedar has been abolished. If that is so, the respondent may be fitted in any other equivalent post. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
