Back
MILIND N. JADHAV
Rohit Dembiwal – Appellant
Versus
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr. Gavade, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Telkar, learned Advocate for Respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the judgment dated 04.09.2021 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Mumbai in Revision Application (ULP) No.10 of 2021 under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short “MRTU and PULP Act”).
3. Petitioner filed Revision Application under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act to challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge Third Labour Court Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No.283 of 2015 dated 11.01.2021 by which the Complaint filed by Petitioner was dismissed holding that Petitioner is not a ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “ID Act”) and consequently an ‘employee’ within the meaning of section 3(5) of the MRTU and PULP Act. By the said judgment the learned Labour Court further held that it did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint.
4. Such of the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the present Writ
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' and 'employee' under the ID Act and the MRTU and PULP Act, based on the nature of the petitioner'....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that a person performing managerial or administrative duties, especially in the capacity of a lawyer representing a company, cannot be considered a....
The definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act excludes managerial employees, and the High Court cannot re-evaluate evidence in writ proceedings.
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.
The appellant, appointed in a managerial role and performing legal duties, was not considered a 'Workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, and thus not entitled to relief under Section 25F.
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
