Failure to prove managerial or supervisory duties keeps an employee within Section 2(s)’s workman definition.

The respondent-employee was appointed as an Assistant Junior Worker on 1 August 1995, regularised from 1 August 1996, and subsequently transferred and promoted.

The petitioners alleged that, while functioning as Branch Head/Manager, he was involved in financial irregularities involving approximately ₹4,00,000 and ₹2,64,666. Two FIRs were lodged and a charge-sheet was issued on 24 January 2005. Following a domestic inquiry, the employee was dismissed from service on 13 June 2007.

The employee raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad, in 2013. The Tribunal allowed the reference and directed reinstatement with full back wages by its award dated 26 June 2019, certified on 5 February 2020.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the employee died on 11 October 2021. Although the petitioners initially filed applications for bringing his heirs on record, those applications were withdrawn with liberty to file an appropriate application; no subsequent application for impleadment was filed.

Whether the respondent-employee was excluded from the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the ground that he had worked as a Branch Manager or Supervisor?

Whether the industrial dispute was liable to be rejected on account of the alleged delay of approximately six years in challenging the dismissal?

Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the dismissal and awarding full back wages when the employer had not effectively contested the proceedings or supported the domestic inquiry?

What was the effect of the employee’s death during the pendency of the writ petition on the relief of reinstatement and the monetary benefits under the award?

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, under which interference with an industrial adjudicator’s award is limited and is warranted where there is perversity, illegality, jurisdictional error, or a violation of legal principles.

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was applied to determine whether the employee was a “workman”; the employer bears the evidentiary burden of establishing that the employee principally performed supervisory or managerial duties.

The Court reiterated that there is no prescribed limitation period for raising an industrial dispute, although delay may be relevant in an appropriate case; in the absence of a serious contest on delay, it was not fatal here.

It further held that back wages may be granted as a matter of judicial discretion where termination is found illegal and the employee establishes unemployment, and such discretionary relief should not ordinarily be disturbed unless perverse or illegal.

Upon the employee’s death, the personal relief of reinstatement no longer survives.

The employer’s contention that the employee was a Branch Manager or Supervisor was unsupported by appointment, confirmation, transfer, or other documentary evidence, and no evidence was produced before the High Court to establish the actual nature of his duties.

Consequently, the Court rejected the objection under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The employer had largely remained inactive before the Tribunal: it filed a written statement but did not effectively participate, cross-examine the employee, or substantiate the domestic inquiry record.

The employee’s evidence therefore remained unchallenged, and the Tribunal was justified in finding the inquiry report sketchy and setting aside the dismissal.

The delay objection was also rejected because no serious challenge had been raised before the Tribunal and industrial disputes are not governed by a fixed limitation period.

Since the dismissal was held illegal and the award of back wages involved a discretionary determination based on uncontroverted evidence, the High Court found no perversity or illegality warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227.

However, because the employee had died, reinstatement was treated as incapable of implementation; the Court also noted that the petitioners had failed to bring the legal heirs on record.

It held that the employer failed to prove that the employee was a managerial or supervisory employee outside Section 2(s), failed to establish that delay was fatal, and failed to demonstrate perversity or illegality in the Tribunal’s award.

Since the employee had died during the proceedings, the relief of reinstatement did not survive; nevertheless, the petitioners were directed to comply with the award dated 26 June 2019 within four weeks from receipt of the order.