The definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act emphasizes duties over designation, placing the onus on the claimant for validation of their status.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an award dated 12.12.2024, passed by the learned Eighth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, at Kolkata, in Case No. VIII 05/2019.

2. The petitioners case is that:-

The Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.

The Respondent No. 1, Ms. Pinki Kahar, is the former employee of the Petitioner. She was employed by the Petitioner lastly as a Shift In-Charge with supervisory and managerial duties. Such position was acquired by her through 3 promotion orders issued by way of her career growth.

3. That due to her gross negligence and misconduct in performing her duties which caused substantial financial loss and reputational damage to the Petitioner, following a show-cause notice, she was terminated on 11.01.2018.

4. Without raising any dispute with the employer, she approached the Industrial Tribunal, leading to the impugned award now under challenge.

5. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of providing services of delivery of consignment from one point to another and, supply chain management etc. on pan India basis, and also offer supply chain management solutions, helping businesses optimize their logistics processes.

6. The Respondent No. 1 was offered appointment to the post of Associate Service in Level-A II with effect from 02.06.2008 on terms and conditions therein and agreed upon, having gross salary of Rs. 7501/- per month, which she accepted, by acknowledging the same by putting signature on an offer letter dated 19.06.2008. Thereafter the Respondent No. 1 was confirmed in service with effect from 01.12.2008, and was promoted to A-1 by company's letter dated 10.10.2011 and again to level E-II vide company's letter dated 01.01.2013 as Executive. Later she was again promoted to E-1 "Senior Executive" vide company's letter dated 16.08.2016 and was working as 1st Shift in Charge and/or shift leader.

7. While holding the said post i.e., 1^st Shift in Charge and/or shift leader, the Respondent No.1 used to manage all associates/employees working under her. Said associates/employees used to report to shift leaders/shift in charge, which goes to show that the shift leader/shift in charge is responsible for approving leave, performance evaluation and rating, etc. and overseeing the general work & workforce in a shift. The shift in charge maintains the stock of consignments of inbound articles as well as outbound articles during the tenure of the shift. Besides the same, the said managerial and administrative function, the Respondent No.1 had power to command as also to take independent decisions. Furthermore, the Respondent No.1 was drawing a salary of Rs. 30,322/- per month CTC, which is nearly Rs. 3,63,864/- only per annum. The same was much more than the "workman" category of employees in the industry.

8. That due to absolute adamant attitude and illogical demands of the Respondent No.1, the conciliation proceeding failed and no settlement could be arrived at.

9. Ultimately, an order of reference was issued by the Appropriate Government on 15.03.2019 under G.O.no. Labr/29/Lt/(LC- IR)/22015(16)/645/2019 referring the matter before the learned Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. Subsequently on 26.07.2019 under G.O. no. Labr./700/(LC-IR)/23099/15/2019 the said dispute was transferred to the Eighth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, at Kolkata for adjudication.

10. On hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal held as follows:-

“ORDERED

That the applicant workman was not given notice pay and retrenchment