Summary: The “High Court Rulings 2024” compilation highlights pivotal judgments under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Cases address critical issues such as the definition of a ‘workman,’ employer-employee relationships, procedural requirements for termination, and jurisdictional boundaries. For instance, the Bombay High Court ruled on managerial roles being outside the workman definition, upheld employer rights to supervise and discipline employees, and confirmed that illegal termination does not always guarantee reinstatement. Similarly, the Chhattisgarh High Court emphasized the necessity of government sanction for prosecuting under the Act, while the Delhi High Court clarified that associations for personal services are excluded from the industry’s scope. The Gujarat High Court stressed limited Labor Court interference under Section 11A unless domestic inquiries are unfair. The Telangana High Court delineated jurisdictional authority, stating disputes must be filed where the employee is posted, not at the company’s registered office. Across these rulings, procedural compliance and evidence-based employer-employee relationships remain focal themes. These interpretations reflect evolving judicial perspectives on industrial disputes in 2024.
INTRODUCTION
The ‘High Court Rulings 2024 – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947’ outlines important cases decided by various High Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short “ID Act”), during the calendar year 2024. The digest of cases is presented High Court wise for easy reference.
SUMMARY
Bombay High Court (“Bombay HC”)
1. Predominant nature of duties being performed by the person decide whether he falls under the ambit of workman.
Venkatesh Seena Naidu Vs Netel India Limited & Anr. (Bombay High Court) [W.P No. 791 of 2023; dt. January 8, 2024]
The petitioner was appointed with respondent as Assistant Manager Projects. His appointment was confirmed by re-designating him as Manager development. Later the services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondent. The petitioner raised a dispute contending that his duties are predominantly technical in nature and falls under the definition of workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the ID Act. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour initiated the conciliation proceedings, which ended in failure. Due to failure of the conciliation proceedings dispute was referred to the labour Court. The Labour Court held that petitioner would not fall under the definition of workman as defined under the ID Act.
On appeal, the Bombay HC held that predominant duties of the petitioner are supervisory in nature and it includes finalising the drawings, supervising a team of 10-15 members, taking decision on behalf of the company and visiting the customers. Considering all these aspects, Labour Court arrived at a conclusion that the employment of the petitioner was in supervisory capacity and cannot be found fault with. The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the Labour Court.
2. Worker entitled to reinstatement with back wages in absence of registration of contract and non-procurement of license by the contractor.
Respondent was appointed as a driver, initially by the petitioner, who runs a star hotel, later on the rolls of different contractors during the relevant time. The services of the respondent were terminated by the petitioner. Respondent raised an industrial dispute.
On reference, the Labour Court awarded reinstatement with 50% back wages. On appeal, the Bombay HC relying on six tests laid by the Supreme Court in Balwant Rai Saluja[1] V. Air India Ltd. held that there is employer-employee relation between the petitioner and respondent. In absence of registration of contract and non-procurement of license, respondent is considered as direct employee of the petitioner.
3. Employer’s right to punish errant employee cannot be circumscribed by blanket order.
Indian Express (P) Ltd. & Ors. V. Dinesh Rane & Ors. [W.P No. 10814 of 2023; dt. Jan 30, 2024]
Respondents raised a dispute with an apprehension of unfair labour practices, by the petitioner. The respondents submitted before the industrial tribunal restraining the employer from terminating the services of employees and from operating transfer order. The Industrial Court passed an interim order in favour of the employees. The decision of the Industrial Court was challenged in the Bombay HC.
The Bombay HC held that petitioner neither issued a show-cause notice/charge sheet nor memorandum to any of the respondents. Further, it held that Industrial Court seeks to circumscribe the right of the employer to punish an errant employee or from effecting transfers, that to in absence of any eminent threat. The interim order of the industrial Court set aside and the petition is allowed.
4. Reinstatement is not automatic when termination order is passed in violation of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act: The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)
Brief facts of this case are the petitioner worked as a casual labour and his services were terminated verbally without complying with Sec 25F of the ID Act. Post termination of services, petitioner was employed as a labour with the respondent doing similar nature of work. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute seeking reinstatement with back wages and the dispute was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal (“CGIT”). CGIT relying on pleadings and on evidence produced found that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 working days during preceding 12 months from the date of termination and held respondent had not complied with the provisions of Sec 25F of the ID Act and termination as illegal. Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Incharge Officer and another Vs. Shanker Shetty[2] and Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another[3], the CGIT awarded a monetary compensation of Rs. 30,000. Aggrieved, petitioner filed the present writ petition.
The Bombay HC held that in case of illegal termination reinstatement is not automatic. In the instant case after termination of employment petitioner has been working as a labour with the respondent, i.e in gainful employment, hence, is not entitled to reinstatement and confirmed the order passed by the CGIT.
Chhattisgarh High Court (“Chhattisgarh HC”)
5. In absence of sanction from the appropriate government, Judicial Magistrate cannot take cognizance of offence under the ID Act.
The respondent filed a complaint u/s 25N of the ID Act, against the directors of Jai Balaji Industries Limited asserting that workers are retrenched violating the provisions of sec 25N. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the matter without considering the provisions of sec 34 of the ID Act, wherein cognizance can be taken only after sanction by the appropriate government. The petitioner approached the High Court. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent without following the procedure laid down u/s 34 of the ID Act has ventured to prosecute the petitioners. The appropriate government has not granted any sanction in terms of section 34 of the ID Act.
The Chhattisgarh HC held that the learned Magistrate has failed to consider Section 34 and Section 2A of the ID Act, in absence of sanction he could not have taken cognizance of the alleged offence. In this case a complaint was filed by the labour inspector without any authority from the State Government. The object of section 34 is to avoid false and frivolous complaints. The High Court with the above observation set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate.
Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”)
6. Persons rendering personal services to the members of an association will not fall under the definition of ‘workman’ and association is not covered under ‘industry’.
A building Kanchanjunga was constructed by M/s Kailash Nath & Associates which engaged certain number of persons to look after security, maintenance and cleanliness of the common area. After some time M/s Kailash Nath & Associates stopped the engagement of said persons and requested the flat owners to take care of the same. Accordingly flat owners formed an association ‘Kanchanjunga flat owners association’ (“Association”) to look after security, maintenance and cleaning.
Later, the Association entered into an agreement with second respondent, contractor, to provide said services and the workmen were transferred through intermediary contractors. The workmen requested the society management to regularise their services since they had been working for long time under their control which was denied; the workmen raised an industrial dispute seeking regularisation of services. On reference, the Tribunal held that the petitioner workmen will not be entitled to any relief. Hence, the present writ petition before the Delhi HC.
The Delhi HC held that the workmen need to prove that they had direct employer-employee relationship with the Association. The contractor was looking after the security of the building and the salary of the workmen was also being paid by the contractor. The Association never issued any chargesheet, memo or sanctioned any leave to the workmen. The workmen were not able to discharge the onus of proving employer-employee relationship and are not entitled to regularisation. It further held, workers are deployed in the first respondent society to provide personal services through the second respondent, such workers will not fall under the ambit of ‘workmen’ and the activities of such Association will not come under the ambit of ‘industry’ as contemplated u/s 2(j) of the ID Act,
Gujarat High Court (“Gujarat High Court”)
7. Labour Court interreference u/s 11A permissible only when the domestic inquiry is not fair.
The present writ petition was filed challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Kalol, Gujarat.
Brief facts of this case are petitioner was appointed with the respondent and completed 240 days of service. Respondent conducted domestic inquiry on the ground that petitioner has committed misconduct by suppressing material facts in obtaining employment. The services of the petitioner were terminated based on the finding of the inquiry. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and was referred to the Labour Court which rejected the reference. Aggrieved petitioner challenged the award in Gujarat HC.
The Gujarat HC held that non-disclosing the facts in the application for appointment, with regard to pendency of proceedings before the Labour Court against the previous employer, is a grave and serious misconduct justifying the dismissal from service. As per the settled law power of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal u/s 11A of the ID Act, is to be exercised judiciously and interference is permissible only when Tribunal is not satisfied with the findings of domestic enquiry or punishment is disproportioned. High Court dismissed the petition.
Karnataka High Court (“Karnataka High Court”)
8. The individual workman seeking regulation can raise an industrial dispute u/s 2(k) of the ID Act through the union of workman only.
In the Management of M/s. Tata Advanced Systems Ltd. V. The Secretary to department of Labour, Government of Karnataka & Ors. [W.P No. 7674 of 2023; dt. January 18, 2024] the petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the order of reference by the first respondent. The brief facts of this case are the second respondent was employed at the petitioner company through a labour contractor. Second respondent submitted a petition to the Labour Commissioner expressing grievance about regularization of employment, which was referred to conciliation. As the conciliation proceedings failed the conciliation officer submitted a failure report to the government. First Respondent referred the dispute to the industrial tribunal for adjudication. The contention of the petitioner is pre-condition for referring a dispute u/s 10 by the appropriate government is, dispute must be an industrial dispute as envisaged u/s 2(k) of the ID, Act and dispute must be espoused by the group of workman or trade union. Per contra, first respondent justified the order of reference.
The Karnataka High Court held that in order to give jurisdiction to the appropriate government to refer the dispute to the tribunal/Labour Court, it is essential for the workman to show that the individual dispute for regularization was espoused by the union of the workmen. The order of reference set aside.
9. The Project engineer will not fall under the purview of the ‘workman’.
Mphasis Limited V. Shri Ashok S Natavannur [W.P. No 5443 of 2021; dt. January 25, 2024]
The subject matter in the present appeal is award passed by the Principal Labour Court, Bangalore allowing the reference of the respondent. The question for consideration before the Karnataka HC is “whether the nature of duties performed by the respondent would come within the purview of the sec 2(s) of the ID Act.”. Brief facts of this case are the respondent was appointed as a software trainee and subsequently promoted as a system engineer later as a Project Engineer. The respondent submitted his resignation citing personal reasons and same was accepted by the petitioner. Petitioner provided relieving letter and settled his dues. Later the respondent raised a claim before the Assistant Labour Commissioner seeking re-employment. The matter was referred to Labour Court for adjudication. The contention of the respondent is that he is a workman, employed by the petitioner as a Project Lead, playing the role of technical lead, delivering the required goods and services of the petitioner and hence falls under the definition of workman’.
The petitioner objected to the claim contending, the respondent is not a workman as envisaged u/s 2(s) of the ID Act. The respondent working as a Project Lead, under him four employees were working, and he will not fall under the purview of ‘workman’.
The Labour Court held that the respondent is a workman and directed reinstatement with continuity of services without back wages. The order of the Labour Court was challenged in Karnataka HC.
It held, for an employee to be a ‘workman’ he must be employed to do (i) Manual work, (ii) Unskilled work, (iii) Skilled work, (iv) Technical work, (v) Operational work, (vi) Supervisory work. To know whether a person falls under the definition of ‘workman’ it has to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties, functions, facts and circumstance of the case and material on record. The respondent in the instant case admitted that he was a Project Lead, which is a managerial role in the petitioner Company and he prepares the estimates and plans for the work products and also prepares designs and quotes, and he is used to provide functional and technical work on regular basis to his team as well as to clients. The material placed on record indicates that his work is not manual, clerical or technical but falls under managerial category, The Karnataka HC allowed the petition and set aside the order of the Labour Court.
10. In the absence of any statutory provision, cannot enforce any right of recognition against the management by filing writ petition.
The petitioner sought recognition of the union by respondent, which was declined. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction to accord recognition to the union. The Karnataka HC held that recognition of union is not regulated by any statutory provision in the state of Karnataka. In the absence of any provision the petitioner cannot enforce any right of recognition against the management by filing writ petition. The provisions of the Trade Union Act, 1926 does not stipulate for recognition of union, which depends upon the discretion of the employer and cannot be imposed by invoking Art. 226 and Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The Karnataka High with the above observations dismissed the petition.
11. Adjudicating authority has no power to decide any point which is not a part of reference made by the appropriate government.
The Management of FDC Limited V. B. Rajkumar W.P No. 36181 of 2012; dt. February 20, 2024]
Petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals products and has its plants in Jogeswari in Mumbai and Baddi in Himachal Pradesh. The respondent was employed in the petitioner company at Mangalore as a sales promotion employee (Medical representative). The respondent was transferred from Mangalore to Solan in consonance with the terms and conditions of employment agreement. However, respondent failed to report at Solan in spite of several reminders sent by the petitioner. Charge sheet was issued and departmental enquiry was conducted. Inquiry officer held that respondent is at guilty of charges levelled against him in the charge sheet. Subsequently, disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment, terminating the services of the respondent. Aggrieved respondent raised an industrial dispute claiming reinstatement with back wages, which was refereed for adjudication.
Labour court upheld the enquiry conducted by the petitioner; on the question of victimisation, it allowed the petition with reinstatement with 50% back wages. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Labour Court in the Karnataka HC.
It held that the respondent workman refused to obey the lawful order of transfer constituting wilful disobedience and insubordination and further held that the order of the labour Court in reinstating with back wages warrants interference and accordingly, the Karnataka HC confirmed termination order.
12. Executive Secretary, performing managerial work, is not a ‘workman’ u/s 2(s) of the ID Act.
The question for consideration before Karnataka HC is “whether the petitioner falls within the expression ‘workman’ as defined u/s 2(s) of the ID Act”.
The brief facts of this case are the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the labour authority challenging the order of termination, which ultimately resulted in referring the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court allowing the petition in part held that the petitioner is a workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the ID Act and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 5,00,000 in lieu of reinstatement, continuity of service, full back wages and other consequential benefits. The respondent challenged the order of the Labour Court in Karnataka HC.
It held, the petitioner had a total experience of 17 years as a secretarial Assistant and discharged her duties in supervisory and managerial role. It is evident from the records that petitioner was working as executive secretary and maintain the records of the managing director. The nature of work performed by the applicant at no stretch of imagination can be said to be envisaged u/s 2(s) of the ID Act. The main duties performed by the petitioner was in the nature of manager and thus, the Labour court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is a ‘workman’. The clerical work, if any, is incidental to the principal work. Karnataka HC held that petitioner is not entitled to Rs. 5,00,000.
Kerala High Court (“Kerala HC”)
13. The Labour Commissioner is not the appropriate authority for claiming minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
The question for consideration before the Kerala HC is “does the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) have the Jurisdiction to direct the principal employer to pay the differential wages payable to an employee of a contractor, u/s 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short “CLRA Act”) while dealing with a conciliation proceeding u/s 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short “ID Act”)”.
Petitioner is a public sector undertaking, challenged the order passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Thiruvananthapuram by which petitioner was made liable for non-payment of minimum wages by the first respondent, who is a contractor, under CLRA Act. The petitioner entered into a contract with the first respondent for providing house-keeping facility at the petitioner’s factory. The second respondent, trade union, claims to be representing the workers of the first respondent submitted a complaint to the third respondent, Regional Labour Commissioner, stating that workers have not received the minimum wages notified by the Government of India. The third respondent passed an order directing the petitioner to pay the minimum wages.
The Kerala HC on perusal of the sec 12 of the ID Act held, the third respondent has no power to decide the dispute on his own. Once conciliation fails, he is obligated to submit the failure report to the appropriate government which in turn may decide whether to refer the dispute for adjudication or not. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Workman of Niligiri co-operative marketing society Ltd. V. State of Tamil Nadu[4] to the nature of services rendered by the first respondent to the petitioner, it becomes clear that the contract is not for supply of labour, but it is for housekeeping and therefore such contracts are taken out of purview of the CLRA Act and third respondent had no authority to pass such orders.
Madhya Pradesh High Court (“Madhya Pradesh High Court”)
14. Labour Court can issue notice to a party which may not party to reference.
The appellants filed the present writ petition challenging the orders passed by the single judge where the single judge upheld the order of the Labour Court in impleading the appellants as a party to the adjudication. Appellant contended that impleading them as a part of the reference is not permissible since the appellants were not party to the earlier proceedings, they came into the picture after the purchase of the respondent No.2 unit. Since the labours of respondent No.3 unit were never employees of the appellants/industry, therefore, no liability can be fastened regarding payment of compensation to them.
Labour Court passed the orders relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Globe Ground India Employees Union V. Lufthansa German Airlines[5] wherein it held that in the adjudication proceedings for impleadment of a party who is not a party to the proceedings, what is required to be considered is whether such party which is sought to be impleaded is either necessary or proper party to decide the lis. It is fairly well settled that necessary party, is one without whom no order can be made effectively. Similarly, a proper party is the one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that it is always appropriate to implead the subsequent purchaser as party since he had already taken over the assets and liabilities of the company, therefore, the appellants cannot raise a plea that since they came subsequently into picture, no relief can be claimed against them. Learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the Labour Court is possessed with the power to issue notice to a party which may not be a party to the reference. In any case the right of the parties would be decided in reference on merits after recording the evidence and considering the material available on record. With the above observations petition is dismissed.
Madras High Court (“Madras HC”)
15. Tribunal cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment in Sec 33(2)(b) petition
The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Chennai. The question for consideration in this case is “whether the Industrial Tribunal is justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment-imposed u/s 11 A of the I.D. Act while deciding the approval petition filed under Section 33(2)(b).”
Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of passenger cars. The respondent has been employed in the petitioner company as a technician since 1999. The respondent was unauthorisedly absent for various periods during the relevant time for 200 days. A show cause notice was issued, and domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The respondent was warned thrice and suspended thrice for unauthorised absence from duty. Respondent was dismissed from the service due to unsatisfactory reply. The petitioner filed approval petition before the industrial tribunal u/s 33(2)(b) of the ID Act. The Industrial Tribunal vide its order upheld the domestic enquiry as fair and proper however, dismissed the approval petition. Aggrieved petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.
The Madras HC relying on John D’souza Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation[6] case held that Tribunal is not justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment by invoking sec 11A of the ID Act in Sec 33(2)(b) petition. Madras HC allowed the petition.
16. Request for change of trade union office does not amount to change in service conditions as contemplated u/s 9A of the ID Act.
The question for consideration in this case is “whether the action of the management in changing the office of the trade union, which was functioning for several years within the campus of Madras Gymkhana Club falls within the definition of change in working conditions under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act.”
The petitioner union is a registered union and is the sole collective bargaining agent espousing the cause of the workers with the respondent management. The respondent club is a member’s club which is a non-profit making social club. The petitioner was allowed to function in the room allocated by the respondent, however, there was no letter or any writing for the allocation of the room for functioning of the petitioner union.
The respondent allotted the petitioner a new office and was asked to move at the earliest. The petitioner replied stating that new place specified by the management was outside the compound of the club and was situated on public land. It was further stated that the proposal of the respondent to withdraw a customary concession or privilege as per item 8 of the Schedule Fourth of the ID Act, was illegal. The union raised an industrial dispute against the proposed change of location and contended that it is violation of sec 9A. The respondent submitted a reply stating that relocation of the petitioner’s office was not change in service condition and the place was required for the purpose of constructing new building to augment the club’s revenue. The government referred the issue for adjudication.
The Labour Court, based on the pleadings and the evidence, concluded that the action of the respondent in relocating the office premises of the petitioner union did not amount to change in service conditions contemplated u/s 9(A) of the ID Act. Aggrieved union invoked the writ jurisdiction.
The Madras HC while dismissing the petition held that members of the trade union are distinct from the union. The trade union is the mouthpiece of the workman and it is created for the purpose of collective bargaining and for the protection of the workman’s rights. Affiliation to a union is optional for the workman and hence trade union cannot be equated to a workman. When Section 9 (A) speaks of change of conditions of service of workman, it only refers to individual workman. Reading the trade union as a workman would be doing injustice to the provision apart from rewriting the same, which is impermissible. Therefore, it held, relocation of the office is not covered by Section 9 (A) of the ID Act.
17. Voluntary retirement of the employees is deemed to be accepted in absence of specific communication rejecting the application made by the employee.
The present petition was filed challenging the order passed by the single judge bench which upheld the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court (in short “Tribunal”).
The second respondent, employee, joined the services of the petitioner in the year 1961 and was unauthorisedly absent since November 21, 1995 citing health reasons. Subsequently, the second respondent submitted an application of voluntary retirement on November 28, 1995. The petitioner has not accepted the application and directed the employee to report to the work. However, the petitioner has not communicated the rejection of the voluntary retirement application to the second respondent. The contention of the petitioner is, second respondent had abandoned the service and remained incommunicado. Hence, they had not made any formal communication. The second respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the first respondent, Tribunal. The contention of the second respondent is, as per the Pension Regulations of the bank, the petitioner is obligated to inform the applicant about the refusal to grant voluntary retirement before expiry of three months, in absence of such intimation, there is a deemed approval. The Tribunal held that employee is deemed to have retired after three months from the date of receipt of application and entitled to retiral benefits. Aggrieved by the Tribunal order, petitioner approached the single judge bench and finally division bench of the High Court.
On perusal of Pension regulations of the Bank the Madras HC held that the second respondent had completed 20 years of service with the petitioner and eligible to opt for the voluntary retirement. Pension Regulation 29(2) mandates the bank to send written communication to the employee in case of rejection of the application of voluntary retirement which had not been complied by the petitioner. It is held that regulations have statutory force and binding on the bank as well as on the employees. In case of non-communication, voluntary retirement is deemed to be approved. The High Court upheld the decision of the single judge bench.
Punjab and Haryana High Court (“The Punjab and Haryana HC”)
18. Differential payment of wages under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (“Minimum Wages Act”) does not make the workmen direct worker of Principal employer.
The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition challenging the adverse award passed by the Labour Court. Petitioner was serving the second respondent, Govt. Medical college, through various contractors and challenged the termination of his services. However, the petitioner has not shown any appointment letter or termination letter issued by the second respondent. The Labour Court held that petitioner was engaged through contractors during the relevant time and answered the reference in favour of the respondent, college management. Apart from the termination of services workmen raised a dispute for non-payment of minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act. The Division bench of the High Court directed the respondent to pay differential amount of wage to the workers. Petitioner, prompted by the order of the High Court made another reference before the Labour Court wherein it held that payment of differential wages under the Minimum Wages Act does not make workman as a worker of principal employer and dismissed the plea on the ground of res judicata, The petitioner contended that principle of res judicata was inapplicable as fresh cause of action arose on account of payment of differential wages by the respondent and by making such payment by the respondent it confirmed that workman was actually appointed by respondent.
The Punjab and Haryana HC on perusal of the various provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, held that mere payment under the said Act by the respondent Management does not make the workman as worker of the Management. The Court further held, in view of principle of res judicata as contemplated by Section 11 of C.P.C., the second reference is not maintainable.
Telangana High Court (“Telangana HC”)
19. Industrial dispute has to be raised before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal having jurisdiction over the place but not at the place of head office of the company or its registered office.
In the instant case petitioner seeks to restrain the 1st respondent, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I from proceeding with ID. No. 51 of 2009 filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 2-A (2) of the ID Act.
Petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacture and sale of animal feed, with registered office at Mumbai. Originally the 2nd respondent was appointed as Stores Clerk and was from time to time, got promoted as Accounts Executive in the Executive cadre and was transferred to Kolakata. He had also been empowered by a power of attorney which clearly evidences that he was employed in a managerial position, thus rendering him to be not a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. Thereafter, his services were terminated vide letter dated 10.08.2009. Questioning the said order, the 2nd respondent, who was employed at the relevant point of time, at Kolkata, filed the petition in Labour Court – I, Hyderabad.
The contention of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent is in the capacity of an executive cadre, hence, will not come under the definition of ‘workman’ and cannot file a case u/s 2A of the ID Act and the Labour Court -I has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
The Telangana HC relied on its own decision laid down in Siemens Ltd. V. Presiding Officer, Addl. Industrial Tribunal Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad[7], wherein it held that once a ‘workman’ has been transferred from one place to another, he ceased to be an employee in the establishment from where he was transferred and he becomes an employee of the place to which he has been transferred and therefore, such an employee cannot be permitted to raise an industrial dispute before the Labour Court in whose jurisdiction the office from where he was transferred as against the termination. It is only the Labour Court within whose jurisdiction the office to which he has been transferred alone would have jurisdiction in such matters. The Telangana HC while allowing the writ petition held that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the Industrial Dispute raised by the 2nd respondent.
[1] (2014) 9 SCC 407
[2] [2010 (8) Scale 583]
[3] [(2009) 15 SCC 327]
[4] 2004 3 SCC 514
[5] (2019) 15 SCC 273
[6] MANU/SC/1428/2019
[7] (2002(6) ALT 446)
Author Bio
