Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Actual Work Performed, Not Designations, Determines Workman Status: Bombay High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court, led by Justice Amit Borkar, upheld the Industrial Tribunal’s decision, affirming the classification of certain employees as ‘workmen’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the case involving Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd.’s Interio Division.

Brief on the Legal Point:

The crux of the legal debate revolved around the interpretation of ‘workmen’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court examined whether the nature of work performed by the employees was consistent with the statutory definition of a ‘workman.’

Facts and Issues:

Following a dispute over wages and benefits, the matter escalated to the Industrial Tribunal, which classified certain employees as ‘workmen’, contrary to Godrej’s claim of them holding managerial or supervisory roles.

Detailed Court Assessment:

Emphasis on Actual Work: The High Court stressed that the employee’s actual work, rather than their job titles, was crucial in determining their status as workmen.

Analysis of Employee Functions: The judgment relied on detailed evidence about the employees’ roles, demonstrating their engagement in manual, skilled, and unskilled tasks, with little evidence of supervisory duties.

Upholding Tribunal’s Rationale: The court concluded that the Industrial Tribunal’s decision was well-grounded in evidence and legal precedent, warranting no interference.

Decision: The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, endorsing the Tribunal’s classification of the employees as workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.

 

 Date of Decision: March 28, 2024.

Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Interio Division v. Shivkranti Kamgar Sanghatana,

 

Similar News