Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vandana Joshi, was appointed as Personal Financial Consultant by Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. on 2nd May 2006 on a permanent post with a guaranteed pay of Rs.2,80,000 per annum. She was placed in the management cadre at Band 8-B. Her services were terminated on 23rd June 2006 on grounds of improper behaviour with a customer, line manager, and fellow colleagues. The appellant filed an appeal before the Executive Committee of the bank, but received no response. She then sent a legal notice and subsequently approached the Ministry of Labour, which referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an award on 22nd January 2009 setting aside the termination and directing reinstatement with back wages. The bank challenged this award by filing a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. A learned Single Judge allowed the bank's petition and set aside the Tribunal's award, holding that the appellant was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. The appellant appealed against this decision. The Division Bench of the High Court examined the nature of the appellant's duties and found that she was not performing managerial or supervisory functions and her wages were below the threshold. The court held that the appellant was a workman and that the termination was illegal as no inquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was given. The court restored the Tribunal's award and allowed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Workman - Definition - Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Appellant employed as Personal Financial Consultant in management cadre at Band 8-B with guaranteed pay of Rs.2,80,000 per annum - Held that the appellant was a workman as her duties were not managerial or supervisory in nature and she was not drawing wages exceeding the prescribed limit (Paras 5-10). B) Industrial Law - Termination - Illegal Termination - Principles of Natural Justice - Termination without holding any inquiry or giving opportunity of hearing - Held that termination was illegal and unjustified as the employer failed to prove misconduct and did not follow principles of natural justice (Paras 11-15). C) Industrial Law - Reference - Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal - Section 10 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Reference made by Central Government to Industrial Tribunal - Held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and its award was based on evidence (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and whether her termination was illegal and unjustified.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 17th December 2009 set aside. Industrial Tribunal's award dated 22nd January 2009 restored. Respondent directed to reinstate appellant with continuity of service and full back wages.
Law Points
- Termination of service without proper inquiry is illegal
- Burden of proof on employer to justify termination
- Workman includes persons employed in supervisory capacity if wages below threshold
- Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate wrongful termination
