Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of “Workman” Under Industrial Disputes Act, Upholds Termination of Assistant Engineer Without Reinstatement or Compensation

Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s confirmation of the Labour Court’s finding that the employee was a “workman” under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (I.D. Act). The Court upheld the termination of the employee without reinstatement and back wages. It ruled that the employee did not qualify as a “workman” at the time of termination based on salary and supervisory functions, and the provisions of the I.D. Act did not apply to him.

Facts:

• The employee, initially appointed as Junior Engineer in 1997, was later promoted to Assistant Engineer by 2001.
• He was relieved from his duties on October 8, 2003, with one month’s salary in lieu of notice, which was accepted and encashed by the employee.
• The employee challenged the termination, arguing he was wrongfully dismissed without following due process under the I.D. Act.
• The Labour Court ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement with compensation. The High Court partly upheld this, but the matter was brought to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

1. Whether the employee qualified as a “workman” under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.
2. Whether his termination was valid and in accordance with legal procedures.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The employee argued that he fell under the definition of “workman” as per section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.
• He claimed he was terminated without reason and without following legal procedures, particularly under sections 25F, 25G, and 25H of the I.D. Act.
• The employee sought reinstatement with full back wages, citing wrongful termination.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The management contended that the employee, due to his supervisory duties and salary exceeding Rs. 1,600/- at the time of termination, did not qualify as a “workman” under the I.D. Act.
• It was argued that the employee had been lawfully terminated by following company rules, which included providing one month’s salary in lieu of notice.

Analysis of the Law:

• The Court analyzed section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, which defines a “workman” and sets specific exclusions for those in managerial or supervisory roles earning above a certain salary threshold.
• The determinative factor for identifying a “workman” was the nature of duties performed, not just the designation.
• The burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility as a “workman” rested with the employee.

Precedent Analysis:

• The Court referred to precedents such as K.C.P. Employees Association v. K.C.P. Ltd (1978) and Shard Kumar v. NCT of Delhi (2002), emphasizing the role of duties performed in determining “workman” status, rather than the job title or designation.

Court’s Reasoning:

• The Court noted that the employee himself admitted to supervising two junior engineers, indicating that he performed supervisory duties.
• Since he was earning a salary above Rs. 1,600/- at the time of termination, under the pre-amendment law applicable at that time, he did not qualify as a “workman.”
• The Court found no violation of law in his termination, especially since he accepted and encashed the salary in lieu of notice.

Conclusion:

• The Court dismissed the employee’s appeal and allowed the management’s appeal.
• The order of the High Court, which upheld the finding that the employee was a “workman” and granted compensation in lieu of back wages, was set aside.
• No costs were awarded.

Implications:

The ruling clarifies that an employee’s designation as a “workman” under the I.D. Act hinges on the nature of their duties and salary, not merely on the title. Supervisory duties, especially when combined with a salary exceeding the statutory limit, exclude an individual from protection under the I.D. Act, as seen in this case.

Also Read – Chhattisgarh High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Order Condoning Delay in Filing Appeal, Citing Violation of Natural Justice and Lack of Opportunity for Hearing