Case Law Details
Mphasis Limited Vs Ashok S. Narayanpur (Karnataka High Court)
Karnataka High Court addressed the case of Mphasis Limited versus Ashok S. Narayanpur, where the issue was whether the respondent’s role as a Project Lead in Mphasis fell under the definition of “workman” as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act). The respondent had resigned from his position, but later sought reemployment, claiming that he was a “workman” and entitled to reinstatement. The Labour Court ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering reinstatement and continuity of service, but Mphasis challenged this decision.
Mphasis argued that the respondent, as a Project Lead, did not qualify as a “workman” because his duties were managerial in nature, rather than falling under manual, clerical, technical, or supervisory categories specified in the ID Act. The Court examined the respondent’s job responsibilities and concluded that his work was managerial, involving tasks such as planning, estimating, and decision-making, which did not align with the duties of a “workman.” The Court highlighted that for someone to qualify as a “workman,” the nature of their primary duties must fall within one of the seven specified classifications under the ID Act. Since the respondent’s work was managerial, the Court set aside the Labour Court’s decision, ruling that the respondent was not a “workman” and dismissing his claim for reinstatement.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The award dated 06.10.2020 in Ref. No.29/2017 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Labour Court’ for short) allowing the reference of the respondent is challenged by the Mphasis Limited.
2. The question that falls for consideration before this Court is:
“Whether the nature of duties performed by the respondent would come within the purview of definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the ID Act’ for short)?”
3. Respondent was appointed as a Software Trainee in Mphasis Limited (Software Company) and was subsequently promoted as a Senior System Engineer, later as a Project Engineer. Respondent submitted resignation letter for his personal reason and the same was accepted by the petitioner, reliving letter was issued and all the dues were settled.
4. The respondent raised claim before the Assistant Labour Commissioner seeking reemployment. The matter was referred to the Labour Court by way of reference under Sections 10 (1) (c) and (1) (d) of the ID Act and the Labour Court registered the reference in Ref. No. 29/2017.
5. The respondent filed claim statement contending that he is a workman and is employed by the petitioner with designation of Project Leader, playing the role of technical lead, delivering required goods and services of the company and hence, falls under the workman category.
6. The petitioner filed objection to the claim statement, inter alia, contending that the respondent is not a workman as envisaged under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and that the relief sought was not maintainable before the Labour Court. The respondent was working as a Project Lead, under him, four employees were working and reporting to duty and as such, he cannot be termed as a workman to maintain the reference.
7. The Labour Court by the impugned order held that the respondent is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and refusing employment to the respondent from 29.08.2016 is not justifiable and directed reinstatement to his original post and further held that the respondent is entitled for continuity of service and all other future consequential benefits, however, the claim of backwages and compensation in respect of other reliefs was rejected.
8. Heard Sri Madhukar M. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.D. Subrahmanya, learned counsel for the respondent.
9. Section 2(s) of the ID Act defines ‘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.”
10. For an employee in an industry to be a ‘workman’ under the definition, after its amendment by the amending Act of 1982, it is manifest that he must be employed to do:-
a) Manual work
b) Unskilled work
c) Skilled work
d) Technical work
e) Operational work
f) Supervisory work
11. The question as to whether an employee is a ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act has to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties and functions. Such a question is required to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, there is no straight jacket formula which can be determinative of the real nature of duties and functions being performed by an employee in all cases. However, where an employee is employed to do any type of work enumerated in the definition, there is hardly any difficulty in treating him as a ‘workman’ under the appropriate classification, but in the complexity of industrial or commercial organization, quite a large number of employees are often required to do more than one kind of work. In such cases, it becomes necessary to determine under which classification, the employee will fall for the purpose of deciding whether he comes within the definition of ‘workman’ or goes out of it. In Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distribution Coof India Vs. Burmah Shell Management Staff Association & Ors1 (Burmah Shell Oil Storage) held that in order to bring an employee within the ambit of the definition of ‘workman’, the nature of work performed by him must fall within one or other of the above seven classifications. The rationale of this holding was that if every employee of an industry was to be a ‘workman’, except those four in the exceptions, these seven classifications need not have been mentioned in the definition and the workman could have been defined as a person employed in an industry except in a case where he was covered by one of the exceptions. Hence, the specifications of seven types of work obviously were intended to lay down that an employee is to become a ‘workman’ only if he is employed to do work of one of those types, while there may be employees who, in doing any such work, would not be out of the scope of the work without any resort to exceptions. In the said case, the person employed in canvassing and promoting sales for an industry was held to be an employee, but he would not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ because of his work and would not fall within any of the classifications enumerated in the definition.
12.. In Management of M/S May and Baker (India) Ltd. Vs. Workmen2 (M/S May and Baker), the question was whether the representative would be included in the word ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The Apex Court held that the work of the employee was not as defined under the clauses of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and held that the Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to order reinstatement.
13. The Apex Court in the case of Miss A. Sundarambal Vs. Government of Goa, Daman and DIU and others3 (Miss A. Sundarambal) held that in order to be a ‘workman’ a person should be one who satisfy the following condition:
i. He should be the person employed in an industry for hire or reward;
ii. He should be engaged in skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work and;
iii. He should not be a person falling under any of the four clauses, i.e., (i) to (iv) mentioned in the definition of workman in Section 2(s) of the ID Act.
14. The Apex Court, placing reliance in the case of M/S May and Baker, held that if the employee therein did not satisfy any of the above descriptions, he would not be a ‘workman’ even though he is an employee of an industry. The Apex Court in the said decision held that the teacher employed in an educational institution cannot be called a ‘workman’ because imparting of the education, which is the main function of the teacher cannot be considered as skilled or unskilled, managerial or supervisory work or technical work or clerical work.
15. The respondent in the instant case admits that he is a Project Lead and he prepares the estimates and plans for work products and also prepares designs and quotes. Ex.M.13 is the self-evaluation prepared by the respondent and it is mentioned in Ex.M.13 that he is used to providing functional and technical work on a regular basis to his team as well as clients and being a project lead, he is to share domain knowledge to mitigate the problems. These statements made by the respondent are self-serving. It is also relevant to note that the respondent, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he is working as a project lead, a managerial position in the petitioner-company and he is not a workman. The relevant portion of the evidence of W.W.1 is extracted below:
16. The person who is given the post of project leader at no stretch of imagination can be implied that he was doing clerical, manual or technical work to come under the purview of the definition of the ‘workman’. The nature of duties performed by the respondent must be in the yardstick to determine whether he is a ‘workman’ or not?
17. The proposition is now well settled that an employee is held to be employed to do that work which is the main work is required to do, even though he may be incidentally doing other types of work. In cases where an employee is employed to do purely one of the seven types of work, enumerated in the definition of ‘workman’, there would be no difficulty in treating him to be a ‘workman’ under the appropriate classification. The material placed and the evidence of the respondent indicate that his work is not manual, clerical or technical but falls under the managerial category, wherein imparting and taking decisions is the main work of the respondent. The respondent work is to estimate and plan available before work (design/coding/unit testing), undertook the knowledge, transition of YES application, understanding YES implementation from sources point of view, providing analysis for change request notified, proactively set up applications and DB, during the course of development, initiated individual (mainly new joiner) to design and develop their respective ITGs and work items along with assignments in YES, undertook DB tuning exercise for FX RS Product with respect to international and ground shipments. The work assigned to the respondent would not come in any of the classification envisaged under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act and the duties performed were neither clerical nor manual and thus, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to order reinstatement. The amount in deposit by the respondent pursuant to the order dated 12.12.2023 is ordered to be returned, in light of this Court holding that the respondent is not a workman. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition is
ii. Impugned order of the Labour Court is hereby set-aside.
iii. Amount in deposit with accrued interest, if any, to be refunded to the respondent on proper identification in accordance with law.
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.
Notes:-
1 1971 AIR 922.
2 AIR 1967 SC 678
3 (1998) 4 SCC 42
Author Bio
