Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
M.K. THAKKER
Jyoti Limited – Appellant
Versus
Maheshbhai Jayantibhai Patel – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the award dated 27.09.2017 in reference LCB No. 307/2009 passed by the learned Labour Court, Vadodara whereby, the learned Labour Court has allowed the reference and held that termination dated 02.04.2009 is illegal and the directions were issued to pay 100% back wages to the workman from the date of termination i.e 02.04.2009 till the date of superannuation. The ground for challenging the impugned award is mainly that the petitioner does not fall under the definition of workmen as per section2(s) of the Act, 1947.
3. The gist of the case is that the organization of the petitioner-Company comprises with various internal department namely HR Department, Accounts Department, Quality Department and Research and Development (R&D) Department etc. and as per the tree of management hierarchy, post of Senior Engineer, Executive Engineer having salary of Rs.25,000/- would be considered as Supervisory in nature and having authority to deal and manage the affairs of the concerned department i.e research
The designation of an employee is not decisive; the nature of duties performed determines workman status under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
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 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....
Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference, the Labour Court rightly shifted the burden on assertion by the petitioner that he is not fulfilling the definition of workman to lead evi....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the contents of documents by primary evidence or secondary evidence under Sections 61 and 65 of the Evidence Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 2(s)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the definition of a 'workman' and the requirement for follow....
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.
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
