Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by M/s Bharti Airtel Limited against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which had held that the respondent, A.S. Raghavendra, was a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent was appointed as Regional Business Head (South) – Government Enterprise Services on 22.06.2009 with an annual package of Rs.22,00,000. He supervised four Account Managers and performed managerial duties including performance appraisals and liaison with senior government officials. He resigned on 24.03.2011, which was accepted, and he received full and final settlement. After 19 months, he alleged forceful resignation and raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court, after examining evidence, held that the respondent was not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the ID Act as he performed managerial and supervisory functions. The High Court's Single Judge set aside this award, relying on Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cable India (P.) Ltd., and held that absence of power to appoint or dismiss indicated non-managerial status. The Division Bench dismissed the company's appeal. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own findings. The Labour Court's conclusion was based on evidence and was not perverse. The burden of proving workman status lay on the respondent, which he failed to discharge. The Court restored the Labour Court's award, holding that the respondent was not a 'workman' and the reference was rightly rejected.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Definition of Workman - Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Managerial and Supervisory Functions - The respondent, employed as Regional Business Head (South) with an annual package of Rs.22,00,000, supervised four Account Managers and performed managerial duties including performance appraisals and liaison with senior government officials. The Labour Court found he was not a 'workman' as he performed managerial/supervisory functions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own findings, as the Labour Court's conclusion was based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 3-5, 10-12) B) Industrial Law - Burden of Proof - Workman Status - Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The burden lies on the employee to plead and prove that he is a 'workman'. The respondent failed to discharge this burden, as his own documents showed he supervised a team and performed managerial duties. The Supreme Court restored the Labour Court's award rejecting the reference. (Paras 8, 10-12) C) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - The High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot act as a court of first instance and re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse. The learned Single Judge's reliance on Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cable India (P.) Ltd. was misplaced as the facts were distinguishable. The Division Bench erred in affirming the Single Judge's order without proper scrutiny. (Paras 6, 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent, a Regional Business Head (South) – Government Enterprise Services, was a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the High Court erred in interfering with the Labour Court's factual findings.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and the order of the Single Judge, and restored the Labour Court's award dated 05.09.2017 rejecting the reference.
Law Points
- Definition of workman under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- managerial and supervisory functions
- burden of proof on employee claiming workman status
- scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution
