H.Rama Murthy Vs K.R.D. Technologies Limited & Another

H.Rama Murthy


K.R.D. Technologies Limited & Another

Facts of the Case:
The petitioner was employed with first respondent as supervisor. He was dismissed from service on 27th July, 2001 when he drew his last salary amounting to Rs. 6305. The petitioner challenged the dismissal before the Labour Court of Hyderabad and also filed miscellaneous petition under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming monetary and financial benefits including the arrears of salary, bonus, encashment of leave etc. The respondent raised the objection as to very maintainability of miscellaneous petition under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act pleading that the petitioner was not workman. Thereby the Labour Court dismissed this miscellaneous petition on the grounds of petitioner not being a workman. The petitioner challenged this order before the high court through writ petition.

The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court as the pleadings and evidence made it clear that he was discharging supervisory functions and thus he is not a workman according to Industrial Dispute Act. The following three categories are not workman under the definition of ‘workman’ under clause (iii) and (IV) of section 2 (s) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947:

(a) Person employed in managerial and administrative capacity;
(b) Person employed in supervisory capacity, but drawing wages exceeding Rs.1600 per month; and
(c) Person employed in supervisory capacity and exercising functions, mainly of managerial nature, irrespective of the salary.


Source: Labour Law Reporter, pg. no. 380, Andhra Pradesh High Court, April 2009


Also Check: Other Legal Aspects



<!-- /15944428/ --> <div id='div-gpt-ad-1604915830963-0'> <script> googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1604915830963-0'); }); </script> </div>