Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.2(s) – “workman” – When not – Respondent appointed in the appellant-Company as Regional Business Head (South) in the grade of Senior Manager (B2)-Sales performed managerial and supervisory work, if a “workman”:
Held: No – Respondent himself described his position as a Member of the senior management cadre, in-charge of supervising the Account Managers in the four Southern States – He performed a supervisory role over the managers and was the Assessing Manager of his team, which consisted of Managers in the B-1 & B-2 Levels – Respondent had perks such as Special Allowance, Car Hiring Charges, Petrol and Maintenance, Driver’s Salary etc. – Labour Court vide a detailed order and discussion held the respondent not to be covered under “workman” as per s.2(s) – However, the Single Judge did not appreciate the discussion by the Labour Court and the available evidence in their true perspective, relying mainly upon the judgment in Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cable India (P.) Ltd. [1984] 3 SCR 169 – Absence of power to appoint, dismiss or conduct disciplinary enquiries against other employees was not the only reason for the Court to conclude in Ved Prakash Gupta that the appellant therein was a “workman” – Mere absence of power to appoint, dismiss or hold disciplinary inquiries against other employees, would not and could not be the sole criterion to determine such an issue – Nature of duties performed by the respondent do not place him under the cover of s.2(s) – Impugned judgment passed by Division Bench of the High Court as well as the judgment of the Single Judge holding respondent to be a “workman”, set aside – Judgment of the Labour Court holding that respondent was performing the role of a Manager and thus was not a “workman” within the meaning of s.2(s), restored – Respondent not a “workman” and thus, reference to the Labour Court under the ID Act against the appellant would not be maintainable. [Paras 5, 21, 22-25 and 29]
Constitution of India – Articles 226, 227 – Re-appraisal of facts – Respondent working as Regional Business Head (South)- Government Enterprise Services in the grade of Senior Manager (B2)-Sales resigned from the appellantCompany however, later filed petition before the Deputy Labour Commissioner alleging that his resignation was forceful – Dispute referred to the Labour Court by appropriate Government – Labour Court rejected the reference holding that respondent was performing the role of a Manager and thus was not a “workman” within the meaning of s.2(s), ID Act – Writ Petition filed by respondent challenging the said award – Award set aside by Single Judge – Appellant filed appeal, dismissed by Division Bench – Appellant contended that the approach of the Single Judge of re-appreciating the entire evidence and coming to a fresh conclusion was not proper while exercising jurisdiction u/Articles 226 and 227: Held: As regards the power of the High Court to re-appraise the facts, it cannot be said that the same is completely impermissible u/Articles 226 and 227 – However, there must be a level of infirmity greater than ordinary in a Tribunal’s order, which is facing judicial scrutiny before the High Court, to justify interference – Such a situation did not prevail in the present facts. [Para 26]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.