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.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is arising out of order dated 11.01.2023 passed in W.P.(C.) No. 3729/2019, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the Appellant upholding the Award dated 07.03.2019 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., wherein the Labour Court has held that the Appellant/Claimant is not a `Workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act).

2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant was appointed on 28.04.1989 as Secretary in the services of M/s. Wimco Ltd.

3. The facts further reveal that in the year 1995 M/s. Energy Infrastructure was incorporated in its erstwhile name, i.e. Wimco Petrogas Limited under the control of Mr. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Managing Director of Wimco Limited and the Respondent No.1 M/s Energy Infrastructure (India) Ltd was based out of the same premises as Wimco Limited. The Appellant was transferred to M/s Energy Infrastructure (India) Ltd vide letter dated 24.02.1998, with the transfer being in effect from 01.04.1998 and he was appointed as Deputy Manager in M2 Grade at a monthly salary of Rs.6500/-.

4. The Appellant was later on awarded a higher designation and a higher salary and he was designated as Senior Coordinator - Database vide letter dated 17.12.2002 and he started working as Senior Coordinator on a salary of Rs.3,03,596/- per annum.

5. The facts further reveal that while serving with Respondent No.1, the Appellant completed his LL.B. Degree, and finally, enrolled with Bar Council of Delhi on 22.09.2009. As the Appellant was registered with the Bar Council of Delhi, the Respondent No.1 Company vide order dated 05.10.2009 entrusted the job of Executive Assistant to the Executive Director to the Appellant and he was also made in-charge of handling legal and liaisoning matters of the company. The services of the Appellant were terminated vide termination letter dated 08.10.2010. In terms of Clause 4 of the Appointment letter dated 17.12.2002, he was paid Rs.4.34 Lakhs being 3 months' salary in lieu of 3 months' notice period. The Appellant accepted the amount, utilized the same and also served a legal notice dated 18.10.2010 to the Respondent seeking compensation. A reply dated 03.11.2010 was given to the Appellant by the Respondent justifying their action. The Appellant was informed that as per the terms and conditions of his appointment order, his services have been put to an end and he has been paid 3 months' salary in lieu of notice period.

6. The Appellant before this Court thereafter took shelter of the provisions of the I.D. Act and filed a statement of claim before the Labour Court stating that he is a `Workman' and the action of the Management/Respondent in terminating his services is illegal, wrongful and in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. The Workman sought reinstatement, continuity in service, full back wages as well as consequential reliefs from the Labour Court. The Management did file a reply to the statement of claim and it was contended before the Labour Court that the Workman in question has been disengaged in terms of the appointment letter dated 17.12.2002 especially in line with Clause 4 of the Appointment Letter which provides for termination of services by either giving 90 days notice, or 3 months' salary in lieu thereof. The employer contended that the Appellant is not a `Workman' under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act; he was enrolled as an Advocate on 22.09.2009 and; he was performing the duties of Assistant Manager (Legal & Liaison) and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, could he be treated as a `Workman..

7. The Labour Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the Claimant is covered within the definition of `Workman' provided under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.

(ii) If issue No.(i) is decided in favour of the Claiman