The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a bench comprising Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Hima Kohli and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Amanullah while dealing with a claim of forceful resignation by a person claiming to be a workman while performing a managerial role in the absence of power to appoint or dismiss employees held that such could not be the basis to regard someone as a ‘workman’ as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cautioning against the expansion of the scope of the same.
Brief Facts:
The respondent was appointed as Bharti Airtel’s Regional Business Head (South) – Government Enterprise Services on 22.06.2009 earning Rs 22 lakhs per annum. During his tenure, he led a team of 4 Account Managers (Sales). On 24.03.2011, the respondent made an initial resignation request which was accepted on 9.05.2011, and he was paid Rs 5,92,538 in the name of final settlement of all claims. After almost 19 months, he approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner alleging forceful resignation, leading to failed conciliation proceedings. Disregarding Bharti Airtel’s claims that the respondent was not a ‘workman’ as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Karnataka Govt. referred the dispute to the Labour Court, but the Labour Court recorded the Respondent’s failure in proving to be a workman and rejected the reference. The said award was challenged before the High Court and the Single Judge partly allowed the petition holding him to be a ‘workman’ and not to the managerial category and sent the matter back to the Labour Court for adjudication on merits.
The instant appeal challenges the decision dated 31-03-2022 passed by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court dismissing Bharti Airtel’s writ petition occasioned on account of a Single Judge partly allowing the respondent’s writ petition.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the Respondent was a Regional Business Head, whose nature of duties clearly established him being a senior manager in the managerial cadre, earning Rs.22 lakhs p.a. and thus, was not covered under the definition of ‘workman’. Re-appreciation of evidence and concluding afresh by the High Court was claimed to be improper while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India since it was not a Court of first instance. It was further alleged that unless a person proves to be employed to perform any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work, he/she does not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the 1947 Act.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent challenged the Labour Court’s approach of only looking at his designation and salary while excluding him from the definition of workman, putting in more reliance upon the duties performed by him and nature, neither being managerial nor supervisory but purely clerical for lacking any decision-making powers and no one reporting to him. It was claimed that Bharti Airtel obtained his resignation under coercion, and he was removed from his services wrongfully/unlawfully and virtually at gunpoint, and not out of his free will.
Observations of the Court:
The Court perused the definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the 1947 Act, the Respondent’s appointment letter for the post of ‘Senior Manager – Sales’ in Bharti Airtel, specific clause reflecting ‘managerial cadre’ and the income break-up. The Court further mentioned the respondent’s previous experience in a managerial capacity based on the material brought on record, and the supervisory role performed over the managers at Bharti Airtel, being the Assessing Manager.
The Court appreciated the Labour Court’s decision of not holding the respondent as a workman and questioned the Single Judge for not appreciating the Labour Court’s findings while solely relying on the decision in Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., 1984 Latest Caselaw 55 SC, which the Court clarified that “the absence of power to appoint, dismiss or conduct disciplinary enquiries against other employees was not the only reason for the Court to conclude that the appellant therein was a ‘workman’.” While hinting at Ved Prakash (supra) being decided by a 3-Judge Bench, the Court cited S.K. Maini Vs. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd., 1994 Latest Caselaw 163 SC decided by a 2-Judge Bench to clarify that it was not always the case that an employee discharging managerial duties and functions is empowered to appoint and discharge other employees.
The Court accordingly expressed that “mere absence of power to appoint, dismiss or hold disciplinary inquiries against other employees, would not and could not be the sole criterion to determine such an issue. Holding otherwise would lead to incongruous consequences, as the same would, illustratively, mean that, employees in high-ranking positions but without powers to appoint, dismiss or hold disciplinary enquiry would be included under the umbrella of “workman” under Section 2(s), ID Act.”
Regarding the High Court’s power to reappreciate facts, the Supreme Court clarified that it was not completely impermissible under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Court observed that “there must be a level of infirmity greater than ordinary in a Tribunal’s order, which is facing judicial scrutiny before the High Court, to justify interference” and made it clear that such was not the case in the instant facts.
The Respondent’s allegation of resignation being forceful, the Court hinted at the language of the same reflecting that “because of being subjected to unfair rating without any feedback or review, he faced personal and professional insult, harassment and was left with no option but to submit his resignation, which was not out of his free will.” The Court clarified that the phraseology ‘not of his free will’ did not mean he was forced, but the resignation was more out of a sense of being unfairly rated by the company. The Court refused to get into far-fetched assumption that the entire organisation would be against one individual and a person of such high calibre and quality, who could deliver so much to the Company, would be forced to put in his papers. The Court observed that “Only because things did not turn out the way the respondent wanted them to, or for that his grievances were not adequately or appropriately addressed, cannot lead to the presumption that the resignation was forced upon him by the Company.”
The Court cautioned that “a person, in the employment of any company, cannot dictate terms of his employment to his employer. He has channels of venting her/his grievances but ultimately, it is the view of the competent authority within the organisation that will prevail with regard to his appraisal/rating.”
The Court regarded the chain of events to be more because of respondent feeling suffocated due to ‘lack of proper appreciation’ rather than by way of arbitrariness or highheadedness of the company.
The Decision of the Court:
While holding that the duties performed by the respondent did not entail him of being a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of 1947 Act, the Court allowed the instant appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The Court restored the Labour Court’s decision.
Case Title: M/s Bharti Airtel Limited vs A.S. Raghavendra
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 5187 of 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Hima Kohli and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 207 SC
Advocates for the Appellants: Mr. C. U. Singh, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, AOR
Advocates for the Respondents: Respondent-in-person
Click here to read the judgement
Page Source : Latest Laws
