The definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act excludes managerial employees, and the High Court cannot re-evaluate evidence in writ proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent-in-person.

2. The present appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 31.03.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned judgment”), passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Writ Appeal No.4067 of 2019 (L-TER) arising from Writ Petition No.13842 of 2018 (L-TER) by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant (hereinafter also referred to as the “Company”), which was occasioned on account of the learned Single Judge partly allowing the respondent’s writ petition.

THE FACTUAL COMPASS:

3. The respondent, upon being interviewed by the appellant’s concerned officials was appointed as the Regional Business Head (South) – Government Enterprise Services on 22.06.2009, in the grade of Senior Manager (B2)-Sales. The same carried an annual benefits package of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Two lakhs) with fixed pay of Rs.13,20,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty Thousand) and variable pay under the Sales Incentive Plan (hereinafter referred to as “SIP”) of Rs.8,80,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs and Eighty Thousand). The respondent worked as Team Leader and Regional Business Head (South) - Government Enterprise Services, heading a team comprising four Account Managers (Sales), one each for the States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, respectively. The said Managers were working under the supervision and control of the respondent and were in the B1 and B2 salary levels. On 24.03.2011, the respondent made an initial resignation request on the internal system, which was accepted by the appellant on 09.05.2011. In terms thereof, the respondent was paid Rs.5,92,538/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety-Two Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty-Eight) by the appellant in full and final settlement of all his claims.

4. After about 19 months, the respondent filed a petition before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Region-2, Bengaluru, alleging his resignation to be a forceful resignation, which resulted in initiation of conciliation proceedings but ended in failure. However, on 27.06.2013, brushing aside the appellant’s objections that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “ID Act”) was not applicable in the case of the respondent as he performed managerial and supervisory work at an annual package totalling Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Lakhs) and thus, was not a “workman”, within the meaning of Section 2(s)¹[Extracted hereinafter], ID Act, the “appropriate Government”²[‘(a) “appropriate Government” means,— (i) in relation to any Industrial Disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a railway company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government or in relation to an Industrial Dispute concerning a Dock Labour Board established under Section 5-A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948), or the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956], or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of Trustees constituted under Section 3-A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Boards of Trustees constituted under Section 5-A and Section 5-B, respectively, of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established unde