M/S Powerica Limited (Dta Unit) vs. Sri Manjunath Pattar

Facts

M/s. Powerica Limited (DTA Unit), the petitioner, appointed the respondent as a Supervisor on probation on April 10, 2012. The respondent's probationary period was extended multiple times, with the final extension granted until August 31, 2015, on humanitarian grounds to allow him to secure alternative employment. When the respondent failed to produce No Objection Certificates (NOCs) or collect his final dues by August 31, 2015, he alleged termination of service. He raised a dispute before the Labour Court, which was transferred and registered as Reference No. 34/2016. The Labour Court, by an award dated August 31, 2019, directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service but without back wages. The petitioner challenged this award through a writ petition before the High Court.

Held

The High Court held that the respondent was not a 'workman' under Section 2(S)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as he was appointed as a Supervisor and was drawing a salary exceeding Rs. 10,000/- per month. The Court noted that the respondent had not filed any objections to the petitioner's submissions regarding his salary and gainful employment. The Court also observed that the respondent was on probation and his service was not confirmed, and that he was gainfully employed, as evidenced by GST particulars. The Labour Court was found to have overlooked these aspects and erroneously directed reinstatement. Therefore, the award of the Labour Court was considered erroneous, illegal, unjust, and unsustainable in law. The Court set aside the award of the Labour Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent, appointed as a Supervisor and drawing a salary exceeding Rs. 10,000/- per month, qualifies as a 'workman' under Section 2(S)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, thereby entitling him to raise a dispute regarding termination? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondent, by virtue of his supervisory role and salary exceeding Rs. 10,000/- per month, is not a workman as defined under Section 2(S)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They argued that the non-extension of the probationary period does not constitute termination or refusal of employment, and therefore, the respondent could not have raised a dispute. Furthermore, the petitioner presented evidence, including GST particulars, to show the respondent was gainfully employed elsewhere, making reinstatement inappropriate. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that he was a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and denied the contention of gainful employment. He sought to justify the Labour Court's award, stating it was based on the material on record.