1 2026:CGHC:14237 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 196 of 2016  Vallabh Shukla S/o Ramratan Shukla, Aged About 63 Years R/o Balco Nagar, Police Station Balco, Tahsil And District Korba, Chahttisgarh ... Petitioner versus  Bharat Aluminium Company Limited Through The Chief Executive Officer And Whole Time Director, Balco Nagar, Korba, District Korba, Chahttisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ghyanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.03 .2026 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Industrial Court, Bench - Bilaspur passed in Appeal Number/ 05/CGIR/A-II/2015, dated 23.06.2016, whereby the matter has been remitted back to the learned Labour Court to decide it afresh. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner/workman was appointed on the post of Analyst on 27.02.1975, and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Foreman (Senior Lab Assistant) in the month of July, 1997. The services of the petitioner were upgraded to the post of Assistant Technical Officer (ATO) and he was kept in E-Zero grade from July, 2000. A notice was issued by the management on 01.02.2011 intimating date of retirement 30.04.2011 on SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.04.01 16:48:57 +0530 2 attaining age of 58 years, which was the age of superannuation of executive cadre. 3. The petitioner challenged said order by filing an application under Section 31 (3) of Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1960) before the learned Labour Court. The management filed reply. The learned Labour Court framed issues, parties led evidence, and thereafter, order was passed on 25.07.2015, whereby, notice dated 01.02.2011 was set- aside and the retirement of the petitioner on 30.04.2011 was held illegal, and instead of reinstatement, the petitioner was held entitled for benefits including salary for period of two years. 4. The said order was challenged by the respondent by filing an appeal under Section 65 of the Act, 1960 before the learned Industrial Court. The Industrial Court vide order dated 23.06.2016 remitted back the matter to the learned Labour Court on the ground that no issue was framed by the learned Labour Court to ascertain the nature of work of the workman. Said order has been challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition. 5. Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate would submit that specific issue was framed by the learned Labour Court to ascertain the nature of work of the workman. He would contend that issue No. 1 was framed by the learned Labour Court, which states that “Whether age of retirement of executive cadre is 58 years and age of retirement of non-executive cadre is 60 ?” He would contend that the parties led evidence and the learned Labour Court decided this issue in favour of workman holding that the workman was performing the work of non-executive cadre, even after promotion to the post of executive cadre. He would submit that sufficient documents were placed on record by the 3 workman to establish this fact. He would contend that the learned Labour Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence passed final order. He would contend that the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court in this regard are perverse as there is sufficient evidence in this regard. He would pray to set-aside the order passed by the learned Industrial Court. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S.K. Maini vs. M/s Carona Sahu Company Limited and Others reported in 1994 SCC (L&S) 776, Triveni Engineering & Indust. Ltd. vs. Jaswant Singh & Anr. reported in 2010 AIR SCW 4944, High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) in the matter of Babulal Dhanotiya vs. M.P. Electricity Board & Ors., passed in Miscellaneous Petition No. 251 of 1987 and Coordinate Bench in the matter of Mohan Jute Mill Limited, Raigarh vs. Ram Pratap Tiwari passed in WPL No. 143 of 2012. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate appearing for respondent would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Kale. Mr. Sinha would argue that the issue with regard to nature of work of workman was to be decided by the learned Labour Court, but no issue was framed in this regard. He would contend that the workman produced evidence to establish the fact that though he was promoted to executive cadre, but he was performing work of non-executive cadre. He would further submit that as no issue was framed by the learned Labour Court in this regard, therefore, the management could not lead cogent evidence before the learned Labour Court. He would submit that the learned Industrial Court has categorically recorded finding to the effect that the learned Labour Court failed to deal with the issue. He would submit that on account of such flaw in the order of learned Labour Court matter was remitted back. He would submit that the 4 petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Babulal Nagar and Others vs. Shree Synthetics Ltd. and Others reported in 1984 (Supp) SCC 128. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner/workman was initially appointed on the post of Analyst, subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Technical Officer (ATO), which is a post of executive cadre (E-Zero). It is true that the learned Labour Court failed to frame issue to decide the nature of work of the workman. The workman appeared in the witness box and stated that though he was promoted to the post of ATO, but he was discharging duties of Analyst, which is non-executive post. The management examined Assistant Manager, Ajay Kumar Gera, who denied the fact that the petitioner was discharging functions of Analyst rather this witness stated that the petitioner/workman was promoted to the post of ATO, which is a post of executive cadre and age of retirement of said cadre is 58 years. 9. In the matter of S.K. Maini (supra), it is held that if the employee is mainly doing supervisory work but incidentally or for a fraction of time also does some manual or clerical work, the employee should be held to be doing supervisory works. Conversely, if the main work is of manual, clerical or of technical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory or other work is also done by the employee incidentally or only a small fraction of working time is devoted to some supervisory works, the employee will come within the purview of 'workman' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5 10. In the present case, initially petitioner was appointed to the post of Analyst, which is post of non-executive cadre, he was upgraded to the post of Assistant Technical Officer with effect from July, 2000. In the order dated 28.11.2000, it is observed that besides continuing the existing job, petitioner would perform higher responsibilities when assigned to him. 11. In the matter of Jaswant Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that what needs to be examined and looked into for deciding the issue is the nature of job performed by the concerned person, duties and responsibilities vested on him and other such relevant material. 12. In the matter of Babulal Dhanotiya (supra), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that in deciding the status of an employee, the designation of the employee is not decisive. What determines the status is the consideration of nature of duties and the function assigned to the employee concerned. 13. In the matter of Mohan Jute Mill (Supra), the Coordinate Bench held that establishment has not led any evidence to establish that the nature of duties performed by the respondent was such which was purely supervisory and he had a position of command in the establishment with administrative functions. It is further held that the finding of the Industrial Court cannot be accepted since there is no evidence led by the Management before the Labour Court with regard to nature of work. 14. In the matter of Babulal Nagar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Courts exercising extraordinary jurisdiction is loathe to interfere with an order remanding the matter to the authority directed to investigate 6 facts. the Industrial Court had made an order of remand. The High Court was not justified in interfering with the same. 15. In the present case, as no issue was framed to determine nature of work of the workman, therefore, the parties failed to lead specific evidence in this regard. The petitioner/workman was discharging functions of post of non- executive cadre or executive cadre is a matter of evidence, which can be decided by the learned Labour Court after framing issue and leading cogent evidence. The Labour Court may consider the judgment passed in the matter of S.K. Maini (supra) while deciding said issue, wherein it is held that if the main work of workman is of manual, clerical or of technical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory or other work is also done by the employee incidentally or only a small fraction of working time is devoted to some supervisory works, the employee will come within the purview of 'workman'. 16. The learned Industrial Court in absence of clinching evidence with regard to nature of work of the workman remitted back the matter to the Labour Court. The intention of the Industrial Court was to provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the parties. 17. Taking into consideration the facts discussed above and law laid down in above-discussed cases, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Industrial Court. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed. The application under Section 31 (3) of the Act, 1960 was moved by the workman before the learned Labour Court in the year 2011, therefore, the learned Labour Court is directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of 7 receipt of copy of this order. 18. Interim order, if any, granted in favour of the petitioner is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant