The court ruled that the first respondent does not qualify as a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act due to the managerial nature of duties and lack of employment status.

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari directing to call for the records pertaining to I.D.No.93 of 2013 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the award dated 19.12.2014 passed by the second respondent.

2.The case of the petitioner is that M/s.Aegon Religare Life Insurance Company Limited inorder to expand their business operations at Nagercoil appointed the first respondent to the post of business manager – agency distribution – Nagercoil on probation vide letter dated 05.08.2010 on a salary of Rs.27,407/- approximately per mensum. The first respondent was also explained his role in the company which was to manage and promote business of Life Insurance through agents for distribution and for selling of the petitioner's company's insurance policies to the public at large. The job of the first respondent involved identifying prospective agents, recruiting agents, providing guidance to them and enable and achieve sale targets of the petitioner company.

3.The further case of the petitioner is that it was the responsibility of the first respondent to resolve the difficulties, doubts of the life advisors and assess their work and recommend regarding their performance to the petitioner company. In essence, the job involves effective management and promotion of business, however, contrary to expectations, the activities of the first respondent had been more of confrontationist and quarrelsome than conducive and supportive of business development. Since the performance of the first respondent was not satisfactory, he was terminated from service vide letter dated 02.12.2010.

4.The further case of the petitioner is that the first respondent admitted his mistakes and accepted the termination and also received the settlement amount, however, he preferred conciliation proceedings and since the conciliation proceedings failed, the matter was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai and the same was taken as I.D.No.93 of 2013 and after adjudication, the second respondent passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to reinstate the first respondent in service with 25%

backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed this writ petition on the sole ground that the first respondent is not a workman in terms of Section 2 S of the Industrial Disputes Act.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that unless the first respondent complete probation successfully, he cannot be said to be the employee of the petitioner company and the nature of work offered to the first respondent is in managerial capacity. The job of the first respondent involved identifying prospective agents, recruiting agents, providing guidance to them and enable and achieve sale targets of the petitioner company and hence, he is not an employee in terms of Section 2 S of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the first respondent also had the power to recruit and the same is proved by the petitioner by marking exhibits Ex.M1 to Ex.M8.

7.In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [2004] Supp. 4 S.C.R. [Mukesh K.Tripathi Vs. Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC and Ors.] and [2015] 4 S.C.R. 186 [Chauharya Tripathi and others Vs. LIC of India and others].

8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent sub