Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anand Sharma, J.
Devendra Kumar Arvind S/o Shri Mohanlal - Petitioner
Versus
Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Kota - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6799 of 2022
Decided On : 15-05-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Govind Gupta for Mr. M.F. Baig
For the Respondent: Mr. Nitin Sinsinwar
The definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act includes those engaged in manual or technical work, regardless of payment method, emphasizing the importance of the employer's control over the worker.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(s) - Definition of 'workman' - The petitioner challenged the Labour Court's award rejecting his claim for reinstatement after termination, asserting he was a 'piece rated worker' and thus not a 'workman' under the Act. The court found that the nature of employment does not require it to be permanent or on a specific payment basis, and the petitioner fulfilled the definition of 'workman' as he was engaged in manual and technical work under the control of the employer. (Paras 7, 10, 14)
(B) Employment Relationship - The court emphasized that the relationship of workman and employer exists if the worker performs tasks under the employer's control, regardless of payment method. The Labour Court's conclusion that the petitioner was not a workman was erroneous. (Paras 10, 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was engaged as a laborer in 2007 and claimed his services were terminated without notice, violating provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court ruled against him, stating he did not establish a workman-employer relationship. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petitioner is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act, quashing the Labour Court's award and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 14, 17)
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner qualified as a workman under the Act and the validity of his termination. (Paras 4, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the definition of workman includes those engaged in manual or technical work, and the method of payment does not negate this status. The Labour Court's findings were flawed as they ignored the control exercised by the employer. (Paras 10, 14)
Result: Writ petition allowed, Labour Court's award quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Anand Sharma, J.
1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 24.02.2022 passed by Labour Court, Kota in LCR No. 49/2011 (CIS No. 966/2014), whereby reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman and his claim has been rejected.
2. Relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially engaged in the year 2007 as labour in respondent-Corporation pursuant to order dated 15.10.2007. It has been contended by the petitioner in memo of writ petition that he was discharging his duties on ‘Piece Rate Basis’ from the date of appointment, however, without issuing any notice and in non-compliance of provision of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’), his services were terminated. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner raised the Industrial Dispute, which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court vide Notification dated 08.08.2011. The terms of reference were as to whether there was any relationship of workman and employer between the petitioner and RSRTC or not and if 'Yes' as to whether terminating the petitioner a ‘piece rated worker’ from services w.e.f. 12.11.2008 was valid or not; and if not for which relief the workman was entitled to.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by holding that the petitioner was a ‘piece rated worker’ hence does not come within the definition of workman prescribed under Section 25F, the Labour Court has committed serious error and jurisdiction of law. Counsel would also submit that Labour Court has also erred in holding that the petitioner could not establish relationship of workman and employer between the petitioner and respondent corporations, hence, on the basis of such erroneous finding the petitioner has wrongly been non-suited. Hence, he prayed for quashing the award dated 24.02.2022.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in order to claim any relief whatsoever under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, an incumbent is required to firstly fall within the category of 'workman', so as to establish relationship of workman and employer between the petitioner and respondent, however, in the instant case, the petitioner has utterly failed to place sufficient material on record so as to fulfilling the requirement of a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 and thereby failed to establish relationship of workman and employer between the petitioner and respondent, therefore, the Labour Court has committed no mistake whatsoever in answering the reference against the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed for rejecting the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the case of H.M. Khatri & Co. Vs. Their Workmen reported in (1960) llLLJ 605 BOM, whereas learned counsel for the respondent has cited the judgments in support of their cases in the cases of Workers of Sagar Talkies (South India...Vs Odeon Cinema And Ors. reported in (1957) lLLJ 639 MAD and Automobile Assoc. Upper India vs The P.O. Labour Court li And Anr. reported in 130 (2006) DLT 160.
6. I have heard the rival submissions put-forward by learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record.
7. It would be relevant to refer that workman has been defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act in following manner:-
"(s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-
(i) who is subject to the
