Gujarat High Court
Mineshkumar Kanubhai Patel vs Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8701/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8701 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MINESHKUMAR KANUBHAI PATEL
Versus
ELECON ENGINEERING CO. LTD. & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
IG JOSHI(8726) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.DIPAK DAVE for JEET Y RAJYAGURU(8039) for the Respondent(s) No.
1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 22/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned Reference Court in Reference (L.C.A.) No. 17 of 2021, whereby the reference was rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of 'workman' as Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:17:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8701/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined contemplated under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ID Act').
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that he was appointed to the post of Senior Executive on 22.12.2004 and was drawing a monthly salary of ₹51,703/-. On 12.10.2020, the Head of the HR Department, Shri Tarak Shukla, along with Shri Kalpesh Parmar, called the petitioner and asked him to tender his resignation. Upon his refusal to do so, the petitioner's services were terminated on 13.10.2020. The said termination was challenged before the learned Reference Court and the Reference Court, after considering the evidence adduced, more particularly, the service record, promotion letters, salary revision letters, pay slips, and bank statements, held that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the same is impugned before this Court by invoking the Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.I.G.Joshi for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave for the respondent. Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:17:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8701/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined
5. Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi submits that the nomenclature of the post solely not to be considered while determining whether an employee falls within the definition of 'workman'. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the nature of the duties performed by the petitioner is a material consideration in deciding whether the petitioner qualifies as a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, the learned Reference Court failed to appreciate the actual nature of the duties and, instead, solely relied on the designation to conclude that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of 'workman.' In light of the above, learned Advocate Mr. Joshi prays that the present petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned award.
6. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Dave submits that the petitioner, being a Senior Executive, does not fall within the definition of 'workman' as contemplated under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. This Court in earlier cases involving identically situated employees, held that such employees are excluded from the purview of Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:17:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8701/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined the said decision was carried in an intra-court appeal, which also came to be dismissed, thereby upholding the view taken by this Court. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that since the issue is no longer res integra, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, and upon perusal of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of identically situated employees, this Court has observed as under:-
10.2. From the above description of each workman, it transpires from the record that there is a hierarchy where first would be the labours of contractor, above them, Junior Engineer and above them, Senior Engineers, above them, Executive Engineer and then Assistant Manager. Considering this hierarchy if one may examine the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court for holding that all the claimants are falling under the purview of section 2(s) of the I.D.Act then it comes on record that though it was disputed with regard to the status of claimant i.e workman no issue was framed neither any evidence was appreciated to that effect. Only cursory reasons assigned for holding that claimants are workmen is that though it is burden of the Management to prove the same Management has not discharged the same and in absence of any evidence regarding powers of termination produced by the Management, adverse inference was drawn. At this stage it is required to consider that onus lies on whom to prove that Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:17:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8701/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined claimants are workmen. If the decision rendered by Apex Court of Lenin Kumar Ray (supra) express publication is referred then it transpires that it is held by the Apex Court that onus of proving the nature of employment rest on the person claiming to be workman within the definition of section 2(s) of the I.D.Act.
Similar was the case before the Apex Court in the above judgement, where the claimants were initially appointed as Junior Engineer in Group-3 Admin and thereafter as the Assistant Engineer (EMC) in Group-2A Admin and getting the salary of Rs. 6805.45 in the year 2001 i.e prior to amendment. The Apex Court has held as under:
"13. Evidently, the employee was appointed as Junior Engineer (E&C) with effect from 07.06.1997 under Group 3 (Admn) with a salary of Rs.4761.75 per month. Clause 14 of the appointment order issued by the management makes it clear that after confirmation of the job, the termination of service will be by one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice by either side. It is not in dispute that the posting of the employee in the cadre of Junior Engineer was confirmed with effect from 07.06.1998 vide letter dated 13.07.1998. As per the letter dated 25.05.2000 of the management, the employee was promoted as Assistant Engineer (E&C) in Group 2A (Admn) with effect from 01.05.2000 and his revised salary was Rs.6008.79 per month. The services of the employee as Assistant Engineer were confirmed with effect from 01.05.2001 vide letter dated 30.04.2001 and it was categorically stated in the said letter that all other terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment order dated 07.06.1997 shall continue to hold good. Vide letter dated 08.10.2003, it was informed that Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:17:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8701/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined the services of the employee were no longer required by the management and hence, he was relieved from duty forthwith.
14. During the course of examination, the employee deposed as W.W.1 that he was not an executive cadre employee and there were senior officers to supervise and control his work. But, in the crossexamination, he asserted that he was supervising the work of two juniors who were working under him. According to M.W.1- Senior Manager of the management, the employee was an executive of the management and the management appointed two Junior Engineers and their works were being supervised by the said employee.
15. The law is well settled that the 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. Further, 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.
16. In the present case, there is no specific document adduced relating to the actual work and functions performed by the employee. 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 and as per the same, the employee was appointed as Junior Engineer and was promoted as Assistant Engineer, on the administrative side. It is the evidence of M.W.1 that the Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:17:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8701/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined employee was supervising the work of two junior Engineers, who were working under him, which was also admitted by the employee in his cross examination, as W.W.1. Even according to the employee, the nature of duties and functions discharged by him was of supervisory.
As such, applying the preamended provision of section 2(s), since the employee was terminated from service on 08.10.2003 and was drawing salary of more than Rs.1,600/-, he does not come within the definition of "workman". Therefore, we hold that the employee is not a "workman" as defined under section 2(s) and is not covered by the provisions of the I.D. Act. In view of the same, the order of the High Court upholding the finding of the Labour Court that the employee was a "workman" within the definition of post-amended section 2(s), is liable to be set aside."
12. This Court has also considered the decision of Apex Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs A.S.Raghavendra reported in 2024 6 scc418 wherein, Apex Court has held as under:
"26.A bare perusal of the above makes it crystal clear that absence of power to appoint, dismiss or conduct disciplinary enquiries against other employees was not the only reason for the Court to conclude in Ved Prakash Gupta (supra) that the appellant therein was a "workman".
At this juncture, we may note that although Ved Prakash Gupta (supra) was decided by a 3-Judge Bench, in a later judgment by a 2-Judge Bench of this Court in S K Maini v M/s Carona Sahu Company Limited, (1994) 3 SCC 510, it was held that:
"11.It should be borne in mind that an employee Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:17:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8701/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined discharging managerial duties and functions may not, as a matter of course, be invested with the power of appointment and discharge of other employees. It is not unlikely that in a big set-up such power is not invested to a local manager but such power is given to some superior officers also in the management cadre at divisional or regional level."
The judgment in S K Maini (supra) is innocent of Ved Prakash Gupta (supra), but we do not find any inconsistency in the statement of law laid down in S K Maini (supra), given our reading of Ved Prakash Gupta (supra) as enunciated hereinabove.
27.That being said, in our considered view, 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. We cannot be oblivious of the impact of our decisions."
13. Learned labour Court instead of framing the issue for the purpose of determining whether employees are falling under the ambit of 'workmen', have cursoraliy held that as no evidence was led with regard to the powers of appointment, dismissal or holding disciplinary enquiry against other employees the employee can be termed as workmen. In the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the above case where it is held that this would not be a sole criteria to conclude the employee under the umbrella of Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:17:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8701/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined workman. The employees in high ranking position in asbence of powers to appoint, dismiss or hold disciplinary enquiry would not be straight away falling under the definition of section 2(s) of the I.D.Act. In absence of any detailed findings given by the learned labour Court this Court is of the view that learned labour Court has committed jurisdictional error in awarding the reference in favour of the workman. In view of the above discussions, the claimants cannot be said to be workmen within the ambit of section 2(s) of the I.D.Act and therefore, finding recorded by the learned labour Court is required to be reversed and is accordingly reversed."
8. The aforesaid decision was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 760 of 2025, wherein the Division Bench was pleased to observe as under:-
"B) WHETHER THE APPELLANTS FALL UNDER THE DEFINATION OF "WORKMAN" :-
27. As regards the second issue, whether the appellants fall within the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act., we are of the considered view that the same is rendered academic in light of our conclusion on the first issue. Nevertheless, we concur with the findings of the learned Single Judge, who, after a detailed and case-specific analysis, held that the appellants do not fall within the definition of "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The learned Single Judge has examined the circumstances surrounding the resignation of each of these employees, including the salary they were drawing at the relevant time. The appellants, in the present appeals, are designated as Junior Engineers, Senior Engineers, and Assistant Managers, and Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:17:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8701/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined were drawing salaries ranging from Rs.21,000/- to Rs.53,000/- per month. In this context, we may mention that the salary drawn by the appellants exceeds the statutory limit of Rs.10,000/- per month, as prescribed under Section 2N of the I.D. Act.
28. The witness examined on behalf of the respondent- Company clearly denied that the appellants were performing duties as CNC Operators. It was stated that the appellants, designated as Junior Engineers, Senior Engineers, and Assistant Managers, were performing supervisory functions consistent with their roles. The appellants, before the Labour Court have not produced any evidence that though they were working in the capacity of Junior Engineers, Senior Engineers, and Assistant Managers, they were compelled to do the work of operating the machines. The appellants are treated to be encompassed within the definition of "workman" as defined under section 2(s) of the I.D.Act, by recording that the Company had failed to produce any documentary evidence showing that they were doing supervisory work. It is settled legal precedent that 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 (vide Lenin Kumar Ray (Supra). The learned Single Judge has meticulously examined the nature of duties, the evidence on record, and the designation of each individual appellant, and has precisely concluded that none of them qualifies as a "workman"
under the I.D. Act."
9. It is not disputed by the learned Advocate Mr. Joshi, appearing for the petitioner, that the issue stands covered by the decision rendered by this Court. In view thereof, the petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:17:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8701/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined be dismissed.
10. Resultantly this petition is dismissed.
11. Rule discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 22:17:57 IST 2025