JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner, who was working as Deputy Director (Finance) in the establishment of the respondent No. 2, Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, was dismissed from service vide order dated 9.12.1994. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. 7 of 1995 before the Civil Judge, Allahabad, which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter the petitioner raised an industrial dispute. Since the matter could not be reconciled, a reference was made by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") to the Tribunal, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 3 of 1999. The reference was as to whether the dismissal of the workman Sri Nirbhay Mehrotra was proper and legal and, if not, what relief would he be entitled to ? The Tribunal, thereafter, vide award dated 18.7.2000, held that since Sri Mehrotra could not be termed as a workman under the definition provided in the Act, hence there was no valid industrial dispute and the order of reference made by the State Government under the Act was without jurisdiction, and thus not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri Shyam Narain, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri V.R. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Piyush Bhargava, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3 hospital. Pleadings have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
3. Brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed on 11.3.1985 as Officer on Special Duty. Thereafter he was promoted as Accounts Officer and confirmed on such post. His designation was then changed to Finance Officer. He was later promoted as Deputy Director (Finance) in the Delhi office of the respondent-Hospital.
4. While the petitioner was working as Deputy Director (Finance), he was served with a Charge-sheet on 22.1.1994. An enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer, who submitted his report on 29.9.1994. Then, after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner and considering his reply, the dismissal order dated 9.12.1994 was passed by the respondent-Hospital authorities.
5. For the purpose of deciding the reference made to it, the Tribunal framed four issues, namely,
(i) Whether the workman claiming to be the workman is workman as defined in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act ? If so, its effect;
(ii) Whether, Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital, Allahabad is an industry as defined in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act? If so, its effect;
(iii). Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the employers was in accordance with law and fair complying the rules of natural justice? Its effect; and
(iv) Whether the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal is barred in view of the fact that the workman had taken recourse and had filed civil suit which was latter withdrawn with permission from the Civil Court itself.
6. While the Tribunal answered the second issue in favour of the petitioner and held that the respondent-Hospital was an industry as defined under the Act, but the issues No. 1 and 4, which relate to whether the petitioner was a workman as defined under the Act or not, and as to whether the jurisdiction of the Tribunal would be barred in view of the earlier civil suit filed by the petitioner or not, were both decided against the petitioner. Since it was held that the petitioner was not a workman and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction, the Tribunal did not decide the third issue relating to fairness of the enquiry.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any good ground for interference with the impugned award.
8. The finding on the Issue No. 1 is justified as it is fully supported by the evidence on record. From the record, it is clear that the petitioner was entrusted with the administrative managerial duties, which included the submission of annual confidential reports of employees working under him for the purposes of confirmation, promotion and crossing of efficiency bar etc. and extract of some confidential reports have also been quoted in the award of the Tribunal. Besides this, all the employees of the Accounts Department of the Hospital were under the petitioner and reporting to him. It has further been found that the petitioner was a member of the Hospital Coordination Committee, which was the highest body of the Hospital for managing its affairs. Such position has not been denied by the petitioner also. The Tribunal also held that Service Rules of the Hospital show that the Accounts Officer/Finance Officer was to be entrusted with administrative duties. The petitioner was admittedly drawing the salary of Rs. 6,800/- per month and was even empowered to sanction purchases upto certain limit.
9. In his evidence, the petitioner failed to discharge the burden cast upon him to prove that he comes under the definition of the workman given under Section 2 (z) of the Act, as no evidence was led by the petitioner regarding the nature of duties performed by him. He has not stated anywhere as to what manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work was being performed by him so as to bring him within the ambit of the definition of workman. In his evidence, he has throughout stated in the negative that he did not perform administrative, managerial or supervisory duties. No positive evidence of the duties performed by him has been given by the petitioner. On the contrary, since the respondent-Hospital had proved before the Tribunal that the duties performed by the petitioner were of allocation of jobs, assignment of work, recommendation of leave, carrying out confidential appraisal etc., it is not understood as to how the petitioner would thus be covered under the definition of the workman given under the Act.
10. Even otherwise, in the plaint filed by the petitioner in Suit No. 7 of 1995, which was subsequently withdrawn by him, it had been admitted by the petitioner that he was working in the management cadre. Sri Shyam Narain has, however, submitted that such assertion in the plaint would not amount to admission on the part of the petitioner as the suit filed by him had been withdrawn. Since on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, it has already been proved beyond doubt that the petitioner was not a workman, I am thus not inclined to go into the said question as to whether an admission in the suit (which was subsequently withdrawn) would be binding on the petitioner in proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. From the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is clear that the petitioner was performing managerial duties and could not be treated as a workman for the purposes of the Act and as such, there was no valid industrial dispute and the order of reference made by the State Government under the Act was without jurisdiction.
11. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed and this writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.