Antony Dominic, J. 1. The appellant is an Ayurvedic Physician. He was appointed by the first respondent who is an agent of Kottakkal Arya Vaidya Sala at Vaikom. Later, the services of the appellant were terminated. That led to an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki as I.D.No.20/04. The Tribunal, by Ext.P9 award, held him to be a 'workman' and that his termination amounts to retrenchment in violation of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That award was challenged by the first respondent in the writ petition filed by him. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge held that a Doctor like the appellant is not a 'workman' as defined under section 2(s) of the ID Act and on that basis, the award was held to be without jurisdiction and the same was set aside. It was challenging the said judgment of the learned single Judge, this writ appeal is filed.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the first respondent and the WA.661/11 2 learned Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent.
3. Although the counsel for the appellant argued that the nature of the duties discharged by the appellant made him a 'workman' as defined under the ID Act, we are not in a position to agree with this contention. Admittedly, he is a qualified Doctor who was appointed by the first respondent. He was consulted by his patients and was also prescribing medicines to them. Such duties discharged by the appellant did not satisfy any of the duties laid down to make him a 'workman' under section 2(s) of the ID Act. If that be so, he was outside the scope of the ID Act itself. Consequently, learned Judge was justified in his conclusions and the judgment does not suffer from any illegality.
Writ appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.
kkb.