Threshold Jurisdictional Wage Limit for "Workman" Qualification Must Be Evaluated Based on Date of Termination.

The Petitioner-management challenged an ex-parte Award dated 05.05.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal.

Respondent No. 2 worked as a "Works Supervisor" and "Housekeeping In-charge" at Hotel Grand Mumtaz, drawing a monthly salary of ₹4,500.

On 23.05.2005, the Respondent ceased service; the Petitioner alleged voluntary abandonment following a misconduct/theft incident, while the Respondent claimed illegal verbal termination.

The Government referred the dispute to the Tribunal in 2006 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act.

The Tribunal ordered reinstatement and 50% back wages.

The Petitioner moved the High Court via writ jurisdiction, arguing the Respondent was not a "workman" and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

1. Whether Respondent No. 2 falls within the definition of a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the Tribunal.

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in law by retrospectively applying the 2010 amendment of the Industrial Disputes Act to a cause of action that arose in 2005.

3. Whether the termination of service amounted to illegal retrenchment under Section 25-F or voluntary abandonment.

Section 2(s)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which defines "workman" but excludes any person employed in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding the statutory ceiling.

In 2005, the wage ceiling for supervisors was ₹1,600 per month, which was increased to ₹10,000 only by the 2010 Amendment.

Duties, not designations, determine workman status as established in Management of May & Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen.

The onus of proof regarding status as a workman lies on the claimant as per Lenin Kumar Ray v. M/S Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd.

A writ of certiorari is issued to correct errors of law or jurisdiction apparent on the face of the record as per Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan.

The Court found that the Tribunal committed a patent error of law by retrospectively applying the 2010 amendment (₹10,000 ceiling) to a 2005 dispute.

Under the law prevalent in 2005, a supervisor earning more than ₹1,600 was not a "workman".

Since Respondent No. 2 earned ₹4,500 in a supervisory role, he was excluded from the definition.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked threshold jurisdiction to entertain the claim, rendering the Award a nullity.

Protections under Section 25-F (conditions for retrenchment) apply only to "workmen," and since the Respondent did not qualify, those protections were inapplicable.

The Respondent failed to provide material evidence of an active termination order, lending weight to the Petitioner’s defense of voluntary abandonment.

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned Award dated 05.05.2015, ordered the Registry to refund any amounts deposited by the Petitioner-management, and set aside all directions for reinstatement and back wages.