A person in managerial position cannot be termed as an workman under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 : Bombay HC
TITLE : Rohit Dembiwal v Tata Consultancy Services Ltd
CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Milind N Jadhav
DATE : 2nd January 2024
CITATION : WP No 10523 of 2023
FACTS
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Petitioner was appointed as IT Analyst Grade C-2 on basic salary of Rs.14,500/- per month excluding all other benefits. Few months later he was confirmed in the services of respondent company. However he was terminated the next year and he contends that the due process of law was not followed. The industrial court held that he was in a supervisory position and hence the provisions of labour law would not be attracted
LAWS INVOLVED
Section 2(s) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 :
(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute
Section 3(5) of The Maharashtra Recognition Of Trade Unions And Prevention Of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
(5) “employee” in relation to an industry to which the Bombay Act for the time being applies, means an employee as defined in clause (13) of section 3 of the Bombay Act; and in any other case, means a workman as defined in clause (s) of section 2 of the Central Act;
ISSUES
whether the Petitioner can be qualified as a workmen under the definition of ‘workman’ contained in Section 2(s) of the ID Act and consequently definition of ‘employee’ within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the MRTU and PULP Act
JUDGEMENT
By analyzing the witnesses in the proceedings, it was observed that the petitioner was acting in managerial capacity. It was seen that Petitioner was a Module leader of the assignment given to him. It was seen that Petitioner was empowered to grant planned leave to associates working with him in that module and his signature was appended on the time sheet. Petitioner’s job was to analyse the nature of job, issues concerned, problems faced by the customer and assign the same to team members working under him according to their expertise for resolution of the same.
The court held that the labour court was right in holding that the petitioner does not fall under the category of workmen and upheld the order.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran