The classification of an employee as a 'workman' depends on the nature of duties performed rather than job title or salary, affirming Labour Court's finding of predominantly administrative roles.

ORDER :

ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.

The petitioner appearing in person is assailing the order dated 30.12.2023 in I.D. No.6/2020 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. In terms of the impugned order, the Labour Court has held that the petitioner is not a ‘Workman’ as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘Act of 1947’). Consequently, the Labour Court has held that the reference is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.

2. Certain facts necessary for adjudication of the dispute are referred to below.

3. Petitioner joined the respondent-Establishment in the year 2018 as Pool Manager. The respondent is running an aquatic centre which has a swimming school. The appointment letter dated 03.12.2018, apart from revealing his total pay of Rs.47,800/- which includes basic pay of Rs.21,510/- would also reveal the duties to be performed by the petitioner.

4. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, alleging that on 02.11.2019 he was forced to submit resignation letter as the management threatened that the petitioner will be terminated from employment, if the resignation is not tendered. The representation submitted by the petitioner raising industrial dispute was referred for conciliation and conciliation having failed, the Conciliation Officer issued an endorsement enabling the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute.

5. The petitioner approached the Labour Court under Section 10 (4-A) of Act, 1947. Petitioner filed an interim application seeking sustenance allowance. The Labour Court granted 50% of the last drawn salary as sustenance allowance which was questioned before this Court by the respondent- Establishment. The petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court to decide the question relating to the maintainability of the industrial dispute as a preliminary issue.

6. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.335/2023 filed by the workman modified the order of the learned single Judge and directed the Labour Court to decide the preliminary issue within two months and confirmed the rest of the order.

7. Before the Labour Court, the parties led evidence on the preliminary issue to substantiate their respective contentions and the Labour Court concluded that the petitioner is not a workman and accordingly, dismissed the petition.

8. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner is before this Court.

9. The petitioner (party in person) referring to various e-mails and other documents placed before the Labour Court would urge that, the Labour Court committed error in holding that the petitioner is not a workman. The petitioner submits that he never performed the managerial acts though he is designated as a Pool Manager.

10. Petitioner contends that he was doing the clerical works and none reported to him. He had no decision making power and was reporting to the head of the management and from his job profile, it is evident that the petitioner is a workman and was neither having a role of a manager nor a supervisor. It is also submitted that though his designation was Pool Manager, he was not the coach and did not do any managerial, administrative or supervisory work and the Labour Court erred in holding that the p