Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
J. S. Malik – Appellant
Versus
Energy Infrastructure (India) Ltd. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 3729 of 2019
Decided On : 11-01-2023
Workman - Industrial Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s) - The court discussed the nature of duties performed by the Petitioner and concluded that he was not a 'Workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Muir Mills (supra) and subsequent decisions to determine that the Petitioner's role was managerial in nature and he was discharging duties in the capacity of a lawyer representing the Respondent - Company.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, Mr. J.S. Malik, challenged the Award passed by the Labour Court, which held that he is not a 'Workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and dismissed his claim. The Petitioner was initially appointed as 'Secretary' and later promoted to various positions entailing managerial responsibilities. The Petitioner completed his LLB, got enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, and was entrusted with the role of 'Executive Assistant to Executive Director' in addition to handling legal and liaisoning matters of the company. The Petitioner's employment was terminated, and he sought compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner's role was managerial in nature, and he was discharging duties in the capacity of a lawyer representing the Respondent - Company. The court upheld the Labour Court's decision that the Petitioner was not a 'Workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Issues: The issues framed by the Labour Court were whether the claimant is covered within the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, whether his services were illegally or unjustifiably terminated by the management, and relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Muir Mills (supra) and subsequent decisions to determine that the Petitioner's role was managerial in nature and he was discharging duties in the capacity of a lawyer representing the Respondent - Company. The court concluded that the Petitioner was not a 'Workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Petitioner's challenge to the Labour Court's decision and upheld the finding that the Petitioner was not a 'Workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Claimant - Mr. J.S. Malik, challenging the Award dated 7th March, 2019 passed by the Labour Court in LID No.398/16 (Old No.347/14) titled Sh. J.S. Malik v. M/s. Energy Infrastructure (India) Ltd. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court has held that the Petitioner/Claimant is not a "Workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, "Act"), and has dismissed the claim of the Petitioner/Claimant. Further, the Labour Court has also dismissed the application filed by the Respondent/Management seeking that the Issue No.1 framed, vide order dated 23rd January, 2013, be decided as a preliminary issue.
Factual Background of the Case
3. The Petitioner was initially appointed on 28th April, 1989, as `Secretary' by Respondent No.1's parent company being M/s. Wimco Ltd. for multifarious clerical duties. The relevant extract of the said appointment letter of the Petitioner is set out below:
" April 26, 1989
Jagbir Singh Malik,
333, Deoli,
New Delhi-110062.
Dear Sir,
Further to our letter dated February 2, 1969, we are pleased to inform you that you have been taken in the Junior Management Cadre of the Company with effect from 1st May 1989 on the following terms and conditions:
1. ASSIGNMENT
Your present assignment will be that of "SECRETARY" in Match Division, New Delhi. However, the Company may reassign or transfer you to any other subsidiary or associate Companies or agencies anywhere in India."
4. Thereafter, in the year 1995, Respondent No.1 - M/s. Energy Infrastructure was incorporated in its erstwhile name, Wimco Petrogas Limited, under the control of Respondent No.3 - Mr. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Managing Director of Wimco Limited. The Petitioner is stated to have been involved in its day-to-day affairs under the same reporting authority, as the Respondent No.1 was based out of the same premises as Wimco Limited. On 24th February, 1998, the Petitioner was officially transferred to the Respondent No.1 entity, w.e.f. 1st April, 1998, and appointed as `Deputy Manager' in `M2 Grade' at a monthly salary of Rs.6,500/-. The relevant clauses of the said Appointment Letter dated 24th February, 1998, are set out below:
"SUB: APPOINTMENT LETTER
This is in reference to your application and the discussions regarding your appointment in Wimco Petrogas Limited. We are pleased to appoint you in the company and the terms and conditions of your service will be as under:
1. APPOINTMENT:
Your initial assignment will be that of Deputy Manager in M2 Grade. The company may however reasoning and/or transfer you to any other position within the Company or in any of its subsidiaries or associated Companies or agencies anywhere in India. You are required to join the services of the Company on or before 1.4.1998.
2. SALARY:
Your monthly consolidated salary will be Rs.6500/- (Rupees Six thousand five hundred only) in the Grade M2).
xxx xxx xxx
8. SEPARATION:
Your services may be terminated by the Company on three month's notice or payment of consolidated salary in lieu thereof. Similarly, you may leave the Company's services after giving three months notice or payment in lieu thereof."
5. In terms of the Letter dated 17th December, 2002, the terms of employment of the Petitioner were restructured, and he was given a better salary and a higher designation. Vide the said letter, the Petitioner was designated as `Senior Coordinator - Database' at an annual salary of Rs.3,03,596/-. The relevant clauses of the said Letter dated 17th December, 2002, are set out below:
"We are pleased to inform you that Energy Infrastructure (India) Limited has revised your emolument package & service conditions effective 01.01.2003 in line with current competitive and performance oriented environment. We are confident that this forward looking measure would spur you to perform better and focus on key result areas.
Assignment
1
AI
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 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.
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 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 central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and its application to the case at ha....
The court emphasized that an employee must establish their status as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, and failure to provide cogent evidence can justify dismissal without a departmental....
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
