Back
N. V. ANJARIA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Srinibas Goradia – Appellant
Versus
Arvind Kumar Sahu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Leave granted.
1.1 Interlocutory Application No.266331 of 2025 is allowed granting permission to produce the additional documents.
2. Whether or not the appellant herein is a ‘workman’ within the meaning and concept of definition under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is the singular question that arises in this appeal, which would in its answer, guide the outcome of the appeal.
2.1 The aggrieved appellant has addressed challenge to judgment and order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Orissa in Writ Petition (Civil) No.24351 of 2022, whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and award dated 16.04.2022 of the Labour Court, Jeypore, District Koraput, Orissa in Industrial Case No.02 of 2019. The Labour Court had allowed the reference of the appellant setting aside the termination order dated 22.04.2018 as illegal, further directing the respondent-management to reappoint the appellant with full back wages.
2.2 Upturning the view of the Labour Court, the High Court held that the appellant did not fall within the meaning of ‘workman’ under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
3.
The designation of an employee does not determine their status as a workman; rather, the dominant nature of their work is the key criterion under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 2(s)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the definition of a 'workman' and the requirement for follow....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to focus on the primary and predominant duties of a person in determining their status as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 194....
The court established that the classification of an employee as a 'workman' depends on the nature of their duties rather than their job title or designation.
The burden of proof regarding the status of an employee as a 'workman' lies with the employee, not the employer, as per the Industrial Disputes Act.
The termination of the workman was deemed unjustified and punitive, leading to an increase in compensation from Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.4,00,000 based on the nature of his duties and the stigma attached to....
The classification of an employee as a 'workman' depends on the actual nature of their duties rather than job titles, reaffirming the need for careful evidence evaluation under the Industrial Dispute....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a holistic consideration of the entire material on record to determine the predominant functions of the employee, emphasizing the esse....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
