IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. THAKKER, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the respondents waives service of Rule.

2. All these petitions are arising out of identical issue. Hence, a common judgment is passed for disposal of all petitions.

3. These petitions are filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Anand granting the reinstatement without continuity of service without back wages to the respondent.

4. The facts of SCA No.4710 of 2023 considered herein and required for disposal of the present petitions, is as follows:

4.1. The petitioner-Company was facing difficulties and hardships and it was difficult to save the company in view of the rumours spread in the market with regard to unsound financial conditions of the company. The petitioner has decided form scheme with regard to voluntary resignation of the employees. It was discussed among several employees as to whether the said employees would like to continue with the company or would like to part ways by finding new employment. The employees on their own decided to part their ways and some of the employees were terminated in accordance with the terms of their contract. Around 676 employees out of 1300 employees have put their resignation and amount of Rs.8,24,68,297/- was paid to such employees. Out of 676 employees 18 employees have raised industrial dispute challenging to such resignation. Some of the employees challenged the resignation on the ground that they have never tendered resignation and documents does not contain their signature and they have been illegally retrenched in violation of section 25(a) of the I.D.Act. Some of the employees have alleged that they have been forced to resign and the resignation is not voluntary. Remaining employees stated that they were assured that after 2 to 3 months they would be taken back and that is how they have resigned from the services. The terms of the reference suggests that the learned labour Court was directed to decide that whether the respondents are entitled to reinstate with continuity of service and 100% back wages or not.

4.2. The statement of claim filed by the concerned respondent alleges that service were terminated wrongfully without paying notice pay or retrenchment compensation and therefore, termination was unreasonable, illegal and void. As against the same, written statement was filed containing that respondent are working on managerial or supervisory post and was getting monthly salary of more than Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, they cannot be termed as workman as per section 2(s) of the I.D.Act and on that ground it was contended that reference was incompetent and not maintainable. It is further contended that because of the global recession and financial crunch it had become necessary to reduce the production and consequently, the services of respondents wherein in first instance were sought to be terminated as per the provisions contained in letter of appointment by issuing termination order but the respondent thereupon gave resignation which was accepted and respondents were relieved from the services. The service of respondents are hardly for few months. The reference was filed against the Elecon EPC Project Ltd which was subsequently amalgamated with the petitioner company as per the scheme or arrangement sanctioned by this Court in Company Petition No.398 of 2016 and Company Application No.290 of 2016 The reference was accordingly amended and petitioner was replaced as first party in the reference in place of Elecon EPC project Ltd.

4.3. The oral evidence given by the workman before the learned labour Court reiterating the contention of the statement of the claim and the petitioner has also produced the evidence in the form of letter of appointment, confirmation letter, transfer order, termination order, resignation of the respondent his letter not to terminate as he was willing to resign, clearance form and service certificate b