Back
M. K. THAKKER
Secretary / General Manager Chavda Vijaysinh Takhatsinh – Appellant
Versus
Dilipbhai Bhadabhai Chudasama – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. K. THAKKER, J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate for respondent waives service of Rule.
2. The present petition being SCA No.11070/2023 is filed by the workman under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and award dated 18.03.2023 passed by the learned Labour Court, Junagadh in Reference (T) No.199 of 2019 qua non granting of back wages and the Special Civil Application No.9611 of 2023 is filed by the employer challenging the same award by which learned Labour Court has directed to reinstate the employee without back wages by holding the termination dated 20.09.2019 being illegal.
3. It was the case before the learned Labour Court that the employee was made permanent on the post of Estate Supervisor from 01.01.1991 and was getting the monthly salary of Rs.38,351/-. Written resignation was given through WhatsApp by the employee on 11.07.2019 without being signed informing his desireness to retire from September, 2019. Thereafter, the said resignation was accepted on 16.07.2019 and he was permitted to retire from 20.09.2019 and it was informed to the employees to collect the amount which is due as per the rules.
3.1. Thereaft
The Labour Court erred in not adjudicating on the employee's status as a workman, leading to an incorrect ruling on the legality of the resignation and entitlement to reinstatement.
The court ruled that employees in managerial roles and earning above Rs.10,000 do not qualify as 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, reversing the Labour Court's decision.
The definition of 'Industry' includes entities engaging in systematic activities with employer-employee relations, irrespective of the profit motive, as determined under the Industrial Disputes Act.
There may be cases where termination of a daily-wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last come first ....
The burden of proof regarding the status of an employee as a 'workman' lies with the employee, not the employer, as per the Industrial Disputes Act.
The main legal point established is that the voluntary resignation of the workman led to the denial of relief under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court emphasized that a workman's classification under the Industrial Disputes Act validates the Labour Court's jurisdiction, and proportionality of punishment must align with inquiry findings.
The definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act excludes managerial employees, and the High Court cannot re-evaluate evidence in writ proceedings.
A resignation must be voluntary; prior acceptance is not mandatory for it to take effect, with the defining factor being the nature of the employee's role under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The court established that the classification of an employee as a 'workman' depends on the nature of their duties rather than their job title or designation.
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
