The definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act excludes certain managerial roles, impacting reinstatement rights.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned Reference Court dated 26.06.2024 in Reference (T) No.2 of 2021, whereby the learned Court has directed the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with continuity of service without back wages.

2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent was appointed as a Technical Apprentice to undergo one year apprenticeship under the Act with effect from 18.07.2007 to 17.07.2008. Thereafter, the respondent was appointed as a Trainee Engineer for a period of one year with effect from 18.07.2008 to 17.07.2009. Upon completion of that period, the respondent was appointed as a Junior Engineer with effect from 18.07.2009 vide its appointment letter dated 09.11.2009. The respondent was transferred to BMCE Division and thereafter, promoted as a Senior Engineer from 01.04.2015 with a revised salary of Rs.37,039/-. The petitioner is in the business of manufacturing of engineering equipments and on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, the business of the petitioner had fallen down and it was difficult for the petitioner to sustain. Therefore, the management has decided to release several employees of various categories serving on various posts, including the respondent, to save the industry. On 13.10.2020, the respondent was relieved from the service by paying 3 months' notice pay in lieu of notice, which was accepted by the respondent and he was relieved from the service on 13.10.2020. Challenging the order of relieving, the said reference was filed before the learned Reference Court, which was awarded in favour of the respondent by granting the relief, which was mentioned hereinabove and the same is a matter of challenge before this Court.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dave for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Khanchandani for the respondent.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Dave submits that the respondent was serving on the post of Senior Engineer and did not fall under the definition of Section 2 (s). Learned advocate Mr. Dave has relied on the decision rendered by this Court in a Special Civil Application No.4710 of 2023 and confirmed by the Division Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal No.760 of 2025 and submitted that as this Court has already taken a decision that a respondent who is a Senior Engineer, in the case of an identically situated person where the persons who are serving on the post of Senior Engineer were not considered as a 'workman', therefore, the issue is no more res integra and in that background, the petition is required to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Khanchandani for the respondent has submitted that as per the evidence adduced before the learned Labour Court, of the witness of the petitioner, the respondent was serving on the post of Gear Profile Grinding Machine Owner and thereafter was promoted as a Junior Engineer as well as a Senior Engineer. Learned advocate Mr. Khanchandani submits that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence to show that the respondent does not fall under the definition of Section 2 (s); therefore, the learned Court is justified in passing the order directing the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent and in that background, no interference is required and the present petition is required to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on referring to the reasons as well as the evidence which was part of the record of the petition, it emerges that from the cross-examination of the respondent, the petitioner has admitted that he was promoted as a Senior Engineer in the year 201