Case Law Details
Smt. N. Bhuvaneshwari Vs Management, M/s. Ambuthirtha Power Private Ltd. (Karnataka High Court)
Karnataka High Court addressed whether Smt. N. Bhuvaneshwari, employed as an Executive Secretary at Ambuthirtha Power Private Limited, qualified as a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). After her termination, Bhuvaneshwari contested her dismissal, claiming entitlement to reinstatement and back wages, asserting that her role fell within the workman definition. The Labour Court initially ruled in her favor, awarding ₹5,00,000 in compensation in lieu of reinstatement. However, the management challenged this decision, arguing that her duties were managerial and supervisory, excluding her from the workman category as per the Act.
Upon review, the High Court overturned the Labour Court’s decision. The Court determined that Bhuvaneshwari’s responsibilities, including managing travel logistics for senior executives and maintaining records, were primarily managerial and supervisory in nature, even if clerical tasks were occasionally performed. Furthermore, her significant professional experience and salary reinforced her managerial status, disqualifying her as a workman under Section 2(s). Consequently, the Court ruled against reinstatement or compensation, upholding the management’s stance and setting aside the Labour Court’s earlier order.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The question that falls for consideration before this Court is:
“Whether the applicant-Smt. Bhuvaneshwari employed as an “Executive Secretary” in Ambuthirtha falls within the expression ‘Workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the ID Act’ for short)?
2. The applicant raised dispute before the Labour Authority challenging the order of termination, which ultimately resulted in referring the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication on the following points of dispute, which reads as under:
3. The points of dispute was:
a. Whether the applicant-Smt. Bhuvaneshwari would prove that she is a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act?
b. In the event of proving so, whether the management of M/s. Ambuthirtha Power Private Limited is justified in terminating her from service w.e.f. 29.06.2013?
c. If not, to what the relief the ‘workman’ is entitled to?
4. The Labour Court by the impugned order held that the applicant is a ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and by the impugned order, allowed the reference in part, directing the management to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the applicant as a relief of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, continuity of service, full backwages and all other consequential benefits.
5. W. P. No.49982/2018 is preferred by the applicant-N. Bhuvaneshwari rejecting the prayer of reinstatement, continuity of service with full backwages and other consequential benefits.
6. W. P. No.6531/2019 is preferred by the management against holding the applicant as a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, setting aside the order of termination and directing the management to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
7. Heard Sri C.K. Subrahmanya, learned counsel appearing for the management and Smt. N. Bhuvaneshwari-party-in person and perused the material on record.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the management would urge the following grounds:
i. The applicant was appointed as an Executive Secretary, considering her vast experience of 17 years in various organization, her educational qualifications and her package was more than Rs.30,000/- per month, which clearly indicate that the applicant was not performing any clerical work and the work assigned to the applicant was Supervisory and Managerial duties, which is evident from the appointment order, the Labour Court, without considering and analyzing the nature of work performed by the applicant, has erroneously held that the applicant is a ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act.
ii. That the applicant was relieved by issuing termination notice as per the terms of the appointment order by giving three months notice, which preceded the process of ‘Exit Interview’ and the applicant clearly answered the question that she has no intention of rejoining the company.
iii. That the Labour Court fell in error in awarding compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- without considering the factual position supported by the material on record, which clearly indicates that the applicant was not interested in joining the company and the termination notice was issued in light of the poor quality of the secretarial work and the repeated failure to coordinate the travel plans of the Managing Director, causing inconvenience.
9. Per contra, Smt. N. Bhuvaneshwari-party-in-person would urge the following grounds:
i. That the Labour Court has rightly held that she is a ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) in light of the nature of duties performed by her.
ii. That the order of termination passed by the management having been held to be not proper, she was entitled for reinstatement into service with backwages and other consequential benefits.
iii. That she being able to establish the order of termination to be illegal and there being victimization by the management, the Labour Court was not justified in not rightly exercising the discretion available to the Labour Court under Section 11A of the ID Act.
10. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the party-in-person and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
11. Section 2(s) of the ID Act defines the ‘workman’ as under:
“2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,—
(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person—
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.”
12. The definition of ‘workman’ in Section 2(s), in connection with the persons employed in an industry falls in three parts:
i. Any person (including an apprentice) employed in an ‘industry’ to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work for hire or reward;
ii. It includes something more in what the term primarily denotes and this part, it defines the person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with an industrial dispute;
iii. This part specifically excludes the categories of person specified in Clause-i to iv of this Sub-Section.
13. The exception to Section 2(s), more particularly Sub-Clauses (iii) and (iv) which are necessary to be considered in this petition, are the persons who are employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity or who are employed in a supervisory capacity, draw wages exceeding Rs.10,000/- per month and either by the nature of the duties attached to the office functions mainly of a managerial nature. Taking the provisions of Section 2(s) of the ID Act, whether the duties performed by the applicant as an ‘Executive Secretary’ falls within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act needs to be looked into.
14. The applicant was offered employment with the designation “Executive Secretary” and the nature of work of the respondent, as could be gathered from the appointment letter, resume made available by the applicant to the post of “Executive Secretary,” is that:
i. Assisting the Chairman, Managing Director and Director in the day-to-day work;
ii. Taking care of their travels (Domestic and International), renewal of Passports, processing of VISA / Tickets, accommodation and vehicle arrangements;
iii. Ensuring that all the bills from the travels are received, checked and forwarded to the Accounts Department for payment;
iv. To see that all the meetings and appointments of the schedule of Chairman, Vice Chairman and Directors are updated;
v. As per the appointment letter, the performance of the duties to be carried out by the applicant was to be in compliance with the established policies and procedures, endeavoring to her best ability to protect and promote the interests of the company;
vi. The salary of the applicant was fixed at Rs.20,000/- per month;
15. The perusal of the records would indicate that before joining the company, the applicant had a total experience of 17 years as a Secretarial Assistant and the post to which the applicant was appointed was based on the qualification and experience she possessed prior to her appointment to the company. The applicant discharged her duties in Supervisory and Managerial Role, the documents produced at Exs.M.1 and M.2 clearly establish the nature of function the applicant was performing as on the date of termination and it is abundantly clear that the applicant was working as an “Executive Secretary” and she had a duty of maintaining the records of the Managing Director and the Chairman, the nature of work performed by the applicant at no stretch of imagination can be said to be as envisaged under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The main duties performed by the applicant is in the nature of Manager and thus, the Labour Court was not justified in coming to a conclusion that the applicant was a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, even assuming the applicant is doing clerical work as contended by the party-in-person-N. Bhuvaneshwari, the clerical work, if any, is only incidental to the principal work, which she is undertaking as a Manager to the post of “Executive Secretary”. The work assigned to the applicant is of responsibility and she was discharging the managerial and supervisory duties as per the appointment order, these surrounding circumstances clearly indicate that the applicant is not a ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act.
16. The question of termination whether it is proper or not, is not a question to be adjudicated before the Labour Court, as the applicant has failed to establish that she is a ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. In the said circumstances, the Labour Court was not justified in arriving at a conclusion that the applicant is entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement, continuity of service, full backwages and all other consequential benefits.
17. For the foregoing reasons, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition No.6531/2019 filed by the management is hereby allowed.
ii. P. No.49982/2018 filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed.
iii. The impugned order passed by the Labour Court is hereby set aside.
iv. It is needless to observe that, dismissal of the claim petition will not come in the way of the workman claiming any entitlement in accordance with law.
Author Bio
