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.

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. Before adverting to the moot question, basic facts may be outlined. The appellant was appointed as cashier in M/s Sai International Hotels Private Limited, Rayagada, on 09.03.2025. The appellant stated that obeying the master-servant relationship, he use to carry out the directions of the respondent employer, that he received a letter of appreciation from the management, and was also receiving employee’s provident fund and State insurance benefits as a workman. It was stated that after long service of 12 to 13 years, his salary was suddenly stopped by the employer.

3.1 When inquired through right to information process, the appellant received a letter dated 09.11.2018 in which it was stated by the respondent-employer that his services were already terminated from 22.04.2018 and was offered one month’s notice pay. Since nothing yielded even after request- letters and correspondences with the management, the appellant invoked jurisdiction of the Labour Court by filing Reference on 20.07.2019. The terms of reference before the Labour Court was whether the termination letter dated 09.11.2018 issued to the appellant by the respondent was legal.

3.2 The first party-employer filed its written statement before the Labour Court which is on record along with production of additional documents. In the written statement, the first party-employer sought to raise the defence that the Reference was not maintainable inasmuch as the dispute raised was not within the compass of ‘industrial dispute’ and that the appellant was not a ‘workman’ within the meaning of definition under the Act. It was contended that the management took over hotel business in the name of M/s Sai International Hotels Private Limited from the previous management as the erstwhile management was not in good financial condition.

3.2.1 As per the say of the first party-employer, the appellant used to work as Front Office Executive and was entrusted the work of Receptionist and supervising the room boys and since his duty was supervisory in nature, he was not ‘workman’ to be entitled to seek the industrial reference.

3.2.2 In the rejoinder before the Labour Court, the appellant asserted that he was not a supervisor nor had been assigned any supervisory or administrative duties as such. The appellant stated that he was under control of the Managing Director of M/s Sai International Hotels Private Limited and that the Managing Director used to instruct about the work to General Manager and that the appellant was working by carrying out the directions of his superior. It was denied that along with the termination order, one months’ salary, as claimed, was paid by the management.

3.3 The Labour Court concluded that the dispute between the parties before it was in the nature of ‘industrial dispute’ within th