TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Employee's supervisory role disqualifies workman status under Industrial Disputes Act section 2(s) despite engineering designation</h1> <h3>LENIN KUMAR RAY Versus M/s. EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD. And THE MANAGEMENT, M/s. EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD. Versus LENIN KUMAR RAY</h3> LENIN KUMAR RAY Versus M/s. EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD. And THE MANAGEMENT, M/s. EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD. Versus LENIN KUMAR RAY - 2024 ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the employee qualifies as a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. Legality of the employee's termination and entitlement to reinstatement and compensation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Qualification as a 'Workman':The primary issue was whether the employee fell within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employee argued that he was a 'workman' as he performed duties that did not fall into a managerial or supervisory category. The management contended that the employee was in a supervisory role, drawing a salary above the statutory limit for a 'workman' at the time of termination, and thus did not qualify under the Act. The court noted that the determinative factor for being classified as a 'workman' is the nature of duties performed, not the job title. The employee admitted to supervising two junior engineers, which aligned with the management's claim. The court concluded that the employee was not a 'workman' as he performed supervisory duties and earned above the pre-amendment salary threshold of Rs.1,600/- per month at the time of termination. Therefore, the High Court's confirmation of the Labour Court's finding that the employee was a 'workman' was set aside.2. Legality of Termination and Entitlement to Reinstatement and Compensation:The employee contended that his termination was illegal as it was done without following due process, and he sought reinstatement with back wages. The management argued that the termination was in accordance with the terms of employment, which allowed termination with one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof. The court found that the employee was terminated with one month's salary in lieu of notice, as per the employment contract, which the employee accepted and encashed. Therefore, there was no procedural violation in the termination process. Since the employee was not a 'workman,' the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act did not apply, negating claims for reinstatement and back wages. The court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the Labour Court's award of reinstatement and compensation, finding no illegality or infirmity in the High Court's order.Conclusion:The appeal filed by the employee was dismissed, and the appeal filed by the management was allowed. The court set aside the High Court's finding that the employee was a 'workman' and affirmed the decision to overturn the Labour Court's award of reinstatement and compensation. There was no order as to costs, and any pending applications were disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
