Gujarat High Court
Naresh Chakubhai Padalia vs Paushak Limited on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10289/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10289 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NARESH CHAKUBHAI PADALIA
Versus
PAUSHAK LIMITED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KARAN SHAH(12750) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 16.11.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court, Godhra, in Reference (T) No. 53 of 2017, whereby the reference filed by the present petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of 'workman' as provided under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:22 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10289/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that he was employed with the respondent establishment since 10.04.1993 on the post of Chemist and was receiving monthly wages of Rs.47,591/-. Though the petitioner had completed 240 days of continuous service in each calendar year, his services were terminated by the respondent with effect from 10.03.2017, which came to be challenged before the learned Labour Court. The respondent appeared before the learned Labour Court and submitted that the petitioner, after initially being appointed as a Chemist, was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Manager, Quality Control, in the Laboratory, and was drawing a monthly salary of more than Rs.64,000/-. It was contended by the respondent that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as he was performing managerial duties and drawing wages exceeding the statutory ceiling of Rs.10,000/-. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Labour Court dismissed the reference by holding that the petitioner does not qualify as a 'workman' under the Act. The present petition Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10289/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined challenges the said order.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Karan Shah for the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submits that, as per the settled legal position, the designation of an employee is not conclusive for determining whether the petitioner qualifies as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Shah that that although the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager, Quality Control, he was not entrusted with the duties and responsibilities associated with that post. Learned advocate Mr.Shah submits that merely drawing wages exceeding Rs.10,000/- per month does not automatically disentitle the petitioner from being classified as a 'workman'. It is argued that the respondent has failed to establish that the petitioner was, in fact, performing managerial or supervisory duties. Therefore, the learned Labour Court has committed an error in dismissing the reference on this ground. Learned advocate Mr.Shah submits that even if the petitioner had the authority to sanction leave, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, such a factor alone Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10289/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined does not exclude him from the definition of 'workman'. Accordingly, the impugned award is liable to be set aside and the present petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocate and upon examining the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court, it emerges that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Chemist on 10.04.1993, and was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Manager, Quality Control. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.64,000/-, and in support thereof, the respondent placed on record a copy of the pay slip at Exhibit 14. On filing the reference, the jurisdictional contention was taken by the respondent that, petitioner does not file under the definition of section 2(s) of the ID Act therefore, the learned labour court would not have jurisdiction. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not lead any cogent evidence to establish that he was performing duties of a 'workman' as defined under the Act, so as to confer jurisdiction upon the Labour Court. The respondent during the cross-examination of the petitioner has placed on record the documentary Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10289/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined evidence i.e. job description, the sanctioning of the leave of subordinate officers produced below Mark 17/3 to 14/11, the employees who are working under the present petitioner were figured below Mark 17/2, the Audit report prepared by the subordinate officer and checked by the present petitioner was produced below Mark 17/12 to 17/29 and during the cross-examination, the petitioner has admitted that one Mr.Girishbhai Soni as well as Mr.Harishbhai Panchal were working under the present petitioner.
6. At this stage the definition of workman provided under section 2(s) of the ID Act is required to be referred which is reproduced herein below:-
"2(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- [ Substituted by Act 46 of 1982, Section 2, for Cl. (s) (w.e.f. 21.8.1984).]
(i)who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10289/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined 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.]"
7. A person cannot be assumed to be a workman on the ground that he does not come within the four exceptions in Section 2(s) of the ID Act. For example, in the industry, to be a workman under the definition, he must be employed to do skilled or unskilled manual work, supervisory work, technical work, or clerical work. If the work done by an employee is not of such nature, he would not be a workman. If every employee of an industry was to be a workman except those mentioned in the four exceptions, these four classifications need not have been mentioned in the definition, and a workman could have been defined as a person employed in an industry, except in cases where he was covered by one of the exceptions. The inclusion of the four specific types Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/10289/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined of work in the definition under Section 2(s) clearly indicates that an employee is considered a workman only if he is employed to perform one of these types of work. There may be employees who do not engage in any of these specified types of work; such individuals would fall outside the scope of the term workman even without reference to the exceptions. The status is determined from primary duties of an employee and the dominant purpose, aim and object of the employment, the Industrial law revolves on the axis of master and servant relationship.
8. As discussed above, from the evidence adduced during the course of adjudication before the learned labour court, it emerges that nature of duties performed by the present petitioner does not fall under the said exceptions. Hence the learned court is justifying in dismissing the reference on the ground of jurisdiction.
9. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:51:22 IST 2025