Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.
M/s. ITW Signode India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
P.Lakshminarayanan, S/o.S.Pardhasaradhi Reddy and another - Respondents
Writ Petition No.4020 of 2004
Decided on : 25-07-2023
workman - Industrial Disputes - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Section 2-A(2))
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public limited company, terminated the services of respondent No.1, who was appointed as a Production Executive, leading to a dispute raised under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Act and concluded that respondent No.1, discharging supervisory and managerial duties, did not fall within the definition of 'workman'. The court set aside the impugned Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.
Issues: The issues involved were whether the dispute raised by respondent No.1 was maintainable under law and whether the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought in the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Act and interpreted relevant case law, including H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Sr. Divisional Manager, L.I.C., to determine the applicability of the definition to the case at hand.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal was set aside.
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed for seeking writ of mandamus declaring the Award passed by Industrial Tribunal – II at Hyderabad – respondent No.2 in I.D.No.70 of 2002 dated 03.12.2003 as illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable under law.
2. Heard Sri Koka Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri B.Srinivasulu, learned counsel, representing Sri B.G.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The brief facts of the case are that:
3.1. The petitioner is a public limited company and dealing with packing of consumables. Respondent No.1 was appointed in the petitioner company as Production Executive on 16.08.1995 on a monthly wage of Rs.4,950/-. On 10.04.1999, the petitioner company terminated the services of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has addressed a letter to the petitioner company permitting him to enter into factory and also to do his work, but the petitioner company has not considered his request. On 24.07.1999, the General Manager of the petitioner company directed respondent No.1 to report at Pashamylaram on 26.07.1999 and accordingly he reported for duty on 26.07.1999, 27.07.1999 and 28.07.1999, but the petitioner company not allowed him to discharge his duties on the ground that his services were already terminated in the month of April, 1999. On 02.08.1999, respondent No.1 made an appeal to the Managing Director of the petitioner company. On 05.08.1999 respondent No.1 received a letter from the General Manager of the petitioner company, wherein it was mentioned that he was already terminated on 10.04.1999 itself and his request cannot be considered. On 10.12.1999 respondent No.1 received a letter along with cheque for Rs.38,783/- towards terminal benefits. Thereafter respondent No.1 submitted several representations to the petitioner company requesting them to consider his case and permit him to continue the services. When petitioner company failed to consider his request, respondent No.1 raised a dispute by invoking the provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) vide I.D.No.105 of 2000 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I at Hyderabad. Subsequently, the said case was transferred to Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad and the same was renumbered as I.D.No.70 of 2002, wherein respondent No.1 sought relief of declaring the action of the petitioner company in terminating him from the services through oral termination order dated 10.04.1999 as illegal and to set aside the same and consequently direct the petitioner company to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, with back wages and with all other attendant benefits.
3.2. In the said I.D., the petitioner company filed counter contending that respondent No.1 is not a workman, as such the Industrial Tribunal is not having jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by him. It is further stated that the petitioner company rightly terminated the services of respondent No.1 and he is not entitled the relief as sought in the I.D.
3.3. The Industrial Tribunal taking into consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both the parties passed the impugned Award dated 03.12.2003 directing the petitioner company to reinstate respondent No.1 into service with continuity of service and pay 50% back wages.
3.4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner company filed the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner company contended that respondent No.1 is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act, as such he is not entitled to raise a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal invoking the provisions of Section 2-A(2) of the Act. He further contended that respondent No.1 was discharged his services as Production Executive under the capacity of supervisory and managerial powers and he does not fall within the meaning of workman. Hence, the dispute raised by respondent No.1
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and its application to the case at ha....
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 definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act excludes managerial employees, and the High Court cannot re-evaluate evidence in writ proceedings.
The definition of 'Workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act excludes those in supervisory roles who exceed statutory salary limits, impacting jurisdiction over disputes.
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.
The court ruled that a workman who performs supervisory duties and earns above the statutory salary limit does not qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, rendering the Tribunal's a....
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.
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
