Smt. Narasamma W/O. Late S.V. Narayanaswamy Rao and ors. Vs. B.R. Lakshmikantha Gupta S/O. B.A. Ramakrishna Setty and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- industrial disputes act, 1947. sections 2(s), 33 & industrial disputes (central)rules, 1957, rule 61: [subhash b. adi, j] protected workmen - held, status of being a protected workmen can be conferred only if employee is workman within meaning of section 2(s) of act and rule 61. except in case of dispute 1% of total number of workman employed in establishment is to be recognized as protected workman. merely because appointment order says workmen on promotion as team leader came under category of supervisor would not by itself confer status of manager on the supervisor. what is required to be noticed is actual discharge of function in the capacity of supervisor or in the capacity of manager. more so, when only recommending power to sanction leave is conferred on them and not sanctioning power. granting of e-mail id or recommending for sanction of leave cannot be characterised to say that, they are independently discharging power over some of the employees. b.s. patil, j.1. order passed on i.a. no. 39 and 30 by the trial court permitting the 1st defendant to adduce his evidence by respening the defendants' evidence is challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition. petitioners are defendants 2(a) to 2(f) before the trial court.2. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.3. a perusal of the impugned order discloses that the court below has found that 1st defendant did not avail the opportunity to lead evidence though sufficient opportunity was provided. despite the same, the court below has persuaded itself to provide an opportunity in the ends of justice to the defendants to lead evidence holding that such a recourse will not prejudice the interest of the petitioners herein. the court below hut allowed both the applications imposing coat of rs. 500/-.4. learned sender counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the 2nd defendant having led the evidence and closed his side, the matter was posted for arguments and at that stage, the present applications were filed only to protract the litigation. he further contends that there is nothing that first defendant can state in view of the judgment end decree suffered by him earlier.5. whatever be the intention behind the 1st defendant in not choosing to lead the evidence, the fact remains that the court below in its discretion has thought it fit to provide one final opportunity to the 1st defendant to lead evidence by imposing costs. the apprehension of the learned senior counsel that the 1st defendant is likely to protract the litigation and is intending to introduce certain facts to improve the case after the closure of the evidence on the part of the 2nd defendant can be addressed by putting the 1st defendant on terms and issuing necessary direction to the trial court.6. hence, i do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial court in exercise of its discretion in the facts and circumstances of the case. however, it is made clear that the 1st respondent shall complete his evidence on 5.6.2009 to which day the matter is posted. it is open to the lrs of 2nd defendant to lead any evidence to counter the materials that the 1st defendant may place on record by leading evidence.7. having due regard to the fact that this is a very old matter, the court below is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.8. writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.