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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
