IMPORTANT POINT
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's duties and responsibilities.

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 Petition are outlined hereunder:

4.1. On 16.06.2010, Petitioner was appointed as IT Analyst Grade C-2 on basic salary of Rs.14,500/- per month excluding all other benefits. On 04.11.2010, he was confirmed in the services of the Respondent No.1 – Company. On 28.10.2011, service of Petitioner was terminated by the Respondent No1 - Company. It is Petitioner’s case that his service was terminated without following the due process of law.

4.2. Thereafter, Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.283 of 2015 before the learned Third Labour Court, Mumbai. It is contented by the Petitioner that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate the admitted documents on record and the real role of the Petitioner in the Respondent No.1 – Company and held that Petitioner was not a ‘workman’ or ‘employee’ considering that the Petitioner’s last drawn salary was Rs.57,108/- and that he was a Module leader and 7 members were working under his guidance and control, that the Petitioner would approve time-sheet and leave of his team members, that he handled financial matters including reimbursement of medical expenses and travel expenses of his team members and thus could not be deemed to be a ‘workman’ under the ID Act and the MRTU & PULP Act.

4.3. The findings of the learned Labour Court have been upheld by the learned Industrial Court in Revision proceedings. Being aggrieved by the above, Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

5. Mr. Gavade, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner would submit that both the impugned judgments passed by the learned Industrial Court and the learned Labour Court do not decide and interpret the definition of ‘workman’ and ‘employee’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act and Section 3(5) of the MRTU and Pulp Act correctly and have miserably failed to appreciate the evidence placed on record for the same. He would submit that in the judgment passed by the learned Labour Court words like ‘control’, ‘supervision’, ‘approving leave’, ‘handling financial matter’ have been imported without the Respondents producing any documentary evidence to prove that Petitioner indeed had the power and authority in a supervisory capacity. He would submit that though the Petitioner was designated as Module leader and performed various functions under the project named SBI-CBS Service Desk Support, it cannot be construed that Petitioner was performing a supervisory duty since the Petitioner was assigned to the project named SBI-CBS Service Desk Support which incorporated tasks relating to analyzing tickets, assigning tickets, tracking solution of tickets which were incidental to the actual work i.e. dominant nature of duty performed by the Petitioner.

5.1. Mr. Gavade would submit that Petitioner was working as one of the billable resour