Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Mere Absence Of Power To Appoint, Dismiss Or Hold Disciplinary Inquiries Does Not Determine ‘Workman’ Status Under Section 2(s) Of The Industrial Disputes Act: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of the term ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Bench, comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, delivered the verdict on 2nd April 2024 in the Civil Appeal No. 5187 of 2023, involving M/S Bharti Airtel Limited and A.S. Raghavendra.

The Court’s judgment focused on two key legal points: the definition of ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act and the scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The case centered around whether an employee in a supervisory or managerial role, without the power to appoint, dismiss, or hold disciplinary inquiries, falls under the definition of ‘workman’.

The respondent, previously employed by Bharti Airtel Limited as Senior Manager, alleged forced resignation, seeking protection under the Industrial Disputes Act as a ‘workman’. The Labour Court ruled against the respondent, a decision which was later set aside by the High Court based on the precedent of Ved Prakash Gupta’s case. Bharti Airtel Limited appealed to the Supreme Court against this High Court decision.

Definition of ‘Workman’: The Court emphasized that the absence of certain powers in an employee does not automatically categorize them as a ‘workman’. The nature of duties and the overall role in the organization must be considered. The Court noted, “Mere absence of power to appoint, dismiss or hold disciplinary inquiries does not alone determine whether a person is a ‘workman’.”

Scope of Judicial Review: The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court should not act as an appellate authority in re-appreciating facts unless there is a glaring infirmity in the Tribunal’s order.

Applicability of Industrial Disputes Act: Given the supervisory role and the substantial remuneration of the respondent, the Court held that he does not fall under the definition of ‘workman’ in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Voluntariness of Resignation: The Court observed that personal dissatisfaction and a sense of being undervalued, without evidence of coercion, do not equate to a forced resignation.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the judgment of the Labour Court. It was held that the respondent is not a ‘workman’ as per the ID Act, and hence, the reference to the Labour Court against the appellant company was not maintainable.

Date of Decision: 2nd April 2024

M/S Bharti Airtel Limited v. A.S. Raghavendra

 

Similar News