Industrial Disputes Act| In Absence Of Concrete Evidence To Demonstrate Nature Of Employee's Duties, Management's Employment Orders Can Be Considered: SC
The Supreme Court observed that in the absence of any concrete material to demonstrate the nature of duties discharged by the employee, the employment orders issued by the management will have to be taken into consideration under Industrial Disputes Act.
The Court was hearing two Appeal arising from the decision of the High Court which by the impugned order, set aside the award of the Labour Court to the extent that the employee is to be reinstated and to be paid compensation of Rs.75k in lieu of back wages, while upholding the finding of the Labour Court that the employee falls under the definition of “workman” as given in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R Mahadevan observed, “In the absence of any concrete material to demonstrate the nature of duties discharged by the employee, the employment orders issued by the management will have to be taken into consideration…”
Brief Facts-
The management of the New Indian Express, a newspaper establishment, employed the Respondent as a Junior Engineer (Electronics & Communication) and later promoted him to Assistant Engineer. The employee was dismissed from service with one month's salary in lieu of notice. Aggrieved, he approached the Labour authorities. The Labour Court ruled in favour of the employee, ordering his reinstatement with compensation of ₹75k in lieu of back wages. The management challenged this in the High Court, which partially upheld the decision. Hence, the present Appeals.
The Court observed, “…determinative factor for “workman” covered under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act is the principal duties and functions performed by an employee in the establishment and not merely the designation of his post.”
The Court said, “the onus of proving the nature of employment rests on the person claiming to be a “workman” within the definition of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the employee is not a “workman” as defined under section 2(s) and set aside the order of the High Court to the extent it confirmed the finding of the Labour Court where it said that the employee was a “workman” within the meaning of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act; and upheld it insofar as it set aside the award of the Labour Court to reinstate the employee in service and pay compensation of Rs.75k in lieu of back wages.
Finally, the Court dismissed the employee’s Appeal and allowed the management’s Appeal.
Cause Title: Lenin Kumar Ray v. M/s Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 802)
