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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
