IMPORTANT POINT
The determination of whether an employee is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act is based on the actual duties performed, emphasizing that titles or managerial roles do not exclude individuals from being classified as workmen if their work aligns with the definitions provided in the Act.

JUDGMENT

Amit Borkar, J. - In this writ petition filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Satara, in Reference I.T. No.4 of 2016, whereby the said Tribunal held that 20 persons enlisted in the Annexure to the Statement of Claim 'workmen' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947( hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D, Act').

2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition, in short, are as under:

3. The petitioner is an engineering company engaged, inter alia, in manufacturing refrigerators, compressors, washing machines, office and home furniture equipment, locks, precision equipment, security equipment, material handling equipment, etc. The petitioner has one of its manufacturing plants, known as "Interio Division", manufacturing furniture items at Shirwal, District Satara.

4. The respondent is a union registered under the Trade Unions Act of 1926 representing workmen of the company established in Satara.

5. In 2015, the respondent raised a Charter of Demands seeking an increase in wages, benefits and emoluments for the workmen concerned. Since the conciliation proceedings failed, the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The union raised the dispute on behalf of about 44 employees whose names were stated in Annexure-A to the Statement of Claim.

6. The petitioner applied framing of a preliminary issue as, according to the petitioner, persons named in the Annexure to the statement of claim do not fall within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. By an order dated 8th November 2017, the Industrial Tribunal framed a preliminary issue as to whether the employees mentioned in Annexure-A to the statement of claim are workmen.

7. The respondent examined Mr. Sachin Desai as its only witness by filing his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief whom the petitioner cross-examined. Petitioner examined eight witnesses in support of his plea that persons mentioned in the Annexure are not workmen. The respondent cross-examined the witnesses. The Industrial Tribunal Satara, by order dated 9th June 2021, held that 20 persons enlisted in the Annexure to the statement of claim are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The petitioner has, therefore, filed a present writ petition challenging the said order.

8. Mr. Cama learned senior advocate appearing for the company establishment, has urged the following submissions in support of the challenge to the order of the Industrial Tribunal:

i. The duties assigned to the workers were managerial, administrative, or supervisory. The dominant nature of their work was managerial or administrative.

ii. The Industrial Tribunal wrongly concluded that the respondent employees are technically qualified (ITI persons). Hence, they cannot be termed as persons performing supervisory or managerial functions.

iii. In the letters of appointment, letters of confirmation, and during the annual performance appraisal process, they were engaged to perform managerial and supervisory functions. Assuming respondent employees fall within the lowest rank system, they still were in the management cadre of the petitioner company by nature of their duties.

iv. The initial burden of proving that employees are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act is on the employees that they failed to discharge as only one person who later withdrew from the proceeding deposed on behalf of all the employees.

v. Various material documents produced on record by the petitioner relating to the recruitment process, duty list, performance appraisal, progressive reviews, management cadre emoluments, management remuneration package, performance paid, and economic value add, i.e., based on the profit-showing formula, were not properly considered by the Industrial Tribunal.

vi. The evidence laid by the petitioner in respect of the nature of duties carried out