Bharati Airtel Limited V. A. S. Raghavendra (Supreme Court of India)
The Regional sales manager will not fall under the definition of workman as given under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”).
The appeal arises out of judgement passed by the Division bench of the Karnataka High Court wherein it held the respondent would not fall under the ambit of the ‘workman’ as envisaged under the ID Act.
The respondent was appointed as a ‘Regional Business Head (South)’ by the appellant in the grade of Senior Manager (B2) sales with an annual benefit package of Rs. 22,00,000. The respondent heading a team of four account managers of four southern states who are working under the supervision and control of the respondent and are in B1 and B2 salary levels. The respondent submitted his resignation on 24th March 2011 and was accepted by the appellant on 9th May 2011 and paid Rs. 5,92, 538 as full and final settlement.
Subsequent to the acceptance of resignation respondent raised an industrial dispute alleging his resignation was forceful and dispute was referred to conciliation that ended in failure. On reference, the Labour Court held that the respondent was performing the duties of a manager and thus was not a workman within the meaning of sec 2(s) of the ID Act. The order of the Labour Court was challenged before the single judge of the Karnataka High Court. While allowing the petition partly the single judge held, since there was an absence of power to appoint, to dismiss, or to hold disciplinary enquiries against the other employees the respondent held to be a ‘workman’ and matter was remanded to the Labour Court for re-examination. Aggrieved appellant challenged the decision of the single judge before a division bench, which dismissed the petition. Finally, the matter reached the Supreme Court.
