Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1498
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
HARINATH.N, J.
K. Hanumantha Rao – Appellant
Versus
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur and others – Respondent
WP No.27809 of 2011
Decided on : 30-12-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V. Mallik
For the Respondent: G.V.S. Ganesh and Government Pleader for Labour
Petitioner classified as a supervisory employee not protected under Industrial Disputes Act; dismissal upheld due to contradictory claims and suppression of facts.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2 (s), 2 (d), and 2 (i) - Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 - Classification of employee status - The petitioner challenged the award of the Labour Court regarding the dismissal from service, asserting that the Industrial Disputes Act applies to his role. The Labour Court dismissed the claim, stating petitioner’s position did not qualify as workmen under the Act. (Paras 5, 7, 8, 18)
(B) Employment Law - Jurisdiction and supervisory role - The terms of employment permit transfer at the discretion of the company and pertain to supervisory capacities exempt from the Act. Petitioner’s claims contradicted earlier assertions, which led to dismissal. (Paras 10, 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought reinstatement after dismissal by the company, arguing that his role as a Field Sales Officer entitled him to protections under the Industrial Disputes Act. He had previously filed a civil suit claiming he was not a workman, conflicting with his position in this case. (Paras 2-4, 9, 16)
Findings of Court:
The dismissal was upheld as lawful; the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts regarding his service status. (Paras 15, 19)
Issues: Whether the petitioner qualifies as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and if the Labour Court appropriately handled jurisdictional objections. (Paras 6, 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the petitioner, serving in a supervisory capacity, does not fall under the definition of a workman per the Act, and the claim was invalid due to previous contradictory claims in a civil court. (Paras 18)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to termination order based on service history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments on maintainability and termination. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. respondent's arguments about the petitioner's previous claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's analysis of employment terms and jurisdiction. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. court's dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is challenging the award passed in ID No.102 of 2006, dated 01.07.2011 and also seeks a consequential direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner into service together with back wages and all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner joined the 3rd respondent as a Trainee Professional Service Representative on 22.02.1983, and his services were confirmed on 17.04.1984. He was promoted to the post of Field Sales Officer on 08.07.1985. The petitioner was transferred to Khammam and was transferred to Imphal vide order dated 01.07.2002
3. The petitioner was reluctant to join at Imphal. He was informed that it was only for a short period and that he would be retransferred to Guntur. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to Tirupati vide order dated 27.04.2004. The petitioner was again transferred to Mumbai vide order dated 01.04.2005.
4. The petitioner did not report to Mumbai as the petitioner felt that the transfer was illegal and without jurisdiction. As the petitioner did not report to his place of posting, the 2nd respondent issued a charge-sheet, dated 01.07.2005. It is submitted that alongwith the charge-sheet an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry proceedings were commenced at Mumbai, and the petitioner attended for a few hearings. The petitioner submitted a medical certificate on 24.01.2006 informing the respondents that the petitioner is unable to attend the enquiry proceedings on account of ill-health. The petitioner was informed that the enquiry proceedings have concluded. The respondents rejected the request of the petitioner for reopening the enquiry. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner was required to submit the explanation within 48 hours. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have passed orders dated 31.03.2006 dismissing the petitioner from service.
5. The petitioner filed ID No.102 of 2006 challenging the termination orders. The Labour Court dismissed the ID on the ground that the petitioner's service could not be brought within the ambit of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Section 2 (d) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (hereinafter be referred to as 'Act') defines the Sales Promotion Employee and submits that the Industrial Dispute is maintainable for the services of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to the Sales Promotion Employees as per Section 6 of the said Act.
7. It is also submitted that the Labour Court has not dealt with the preliminary objection of the petitioner and went ahead in deciding the main issue without considering the preliminary objection of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court erred in rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that the services of the petitioner cannot be treated as the services of the workmen as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the termination is illegal and as such the petitioner is entitled for a direction for reinstatement.
9. Sri C.R. Sridharan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 virtually online, submits that the petitioner has suppressed several factors and filed the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has suppressed filing a civil suit vide OS No.663 of 2005 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. It is
