ORDER

The petitioner is assailing the order dated

09.10.2018 in Ref. No.26/2016 on the file of the Second Additional Labour Court at Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short) whereby, the Tribunal has rejected the dispute raised by the petitioner under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the ID Act’ for short).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Senior Assistant Administrator in respondent-company and was promoted as Associate Manger (HR). After ten years of service, the respondent- company has terminated the contract of employment in the guise of the petitioner has herself voluntarily resigned the service. It is stated in the petition that respondent with an intention to terminate the employment of the petitioner had made it appear that she had voluntarily tendered her resignation. It is further stated that the petitioner had initiated conciliation proceedings before the Labour Court, Bangalore and since the proceedings ended in failure, the matter was referred to adjudication in Reference No.26/2016. The Labour Court has dismissed the reference petition on the ground that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of 2 (s) of the ID Act and accordingly, rejected the reference.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed statement of objections inter alia contending that the petitioner submitted her resume to the respondent- company for suitable job considering her eight years of experience, she was called for interview and in the process of interview, taking into consideration her experience, she was appointed as Senior Assistant Administrator and letter of appointment was accorded to the petitioner and terms of the appointment has been appended and having been accepted the terms, the petitioner joined the respondent-

company on 14.07.2003 and a separate document containing the terms and conditions of the contract was also executed and the same was revised from time to time. That the petitioner was promoted as Associate Manager (HR) with effect from 01.04.2012 and after promotion, the petitioner was given revision in the salary and the salary was again revised with effect from 01.04.2013. It is stated in the statement of objections that the duties and responsibilities of the petitioner were those of an Associate Manager (HR) and has specified duties which has been undertaken by the petitioner was that of an non-clerical work and supervisory work. It is further stated that the petitioner was performing managerial functions and she is not the workman as defined under section 2 (s) of the ID Act. The Tribunal taking into consideration of all these aspects has rightly rejected the reference petition made by the petitioner.

4. Heard Smt. R. Radha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vasuki K.N. learned counsel for Sri. B.C.

Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Tribunal was not justified in only answering issue No.1 holding that the petitioner is not a workman as contemplated under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and in not answering point No.2, which led the order unsustainable and sought to set-aside the order. Learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner was not doing managerial work as contended by the respondent- company but infact was doing the clerical work and would be termed as a workman as envisaged under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act. According to the learned counsel, the said contention was not considered by the Tribunal and the reasoning accorded by the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the ID Act is unsustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Cipla Ltd. & Ors vs Ripu Daman Bhanot & Anr reported in AIR 1999 SC 1635 [Cipla Ltd.] and sought to allow the petition.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in addition to t