1. Heard Mr. Shivang J. Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted by him that the Labour Court has given erroneous findings in the impugned award dated 30th September, 2011, to the effect that the petitioner is not a workman. It is further submitted that the initial appointment of the petitioner was as a "Watch Repairer". He was given additional charge as Supervisor, but was not given the scale of Supervisor. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner was not a workman. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. Vs. The Workmen reported in 1970(3) Supreme Court Cases 248.
2. Rule, returnable on 3rd December, 2012.
3. In addition to the normal of mode of service, direct service is permitted.
(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) chandrashekhar* Top