Order passed by Kolkata Industrial Tribunal has to be perused before forming any opinion.

What is the advise of the lawyer engaged by you, who is well aware about facts and circumstance of the case besides the fact that s/he is an able, competent, intelligent enough and duty bound to satisfy your question(s) ?

The Calcutta High Court's decision to set aside an Industrial Tribunal order by ruling that an employee in a managerial or supervisory capacity is not a "workman" aligns with fundamental principles under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). An Industrial Tribunal derives jurisdiction only if a valid industrial dispute exists between an employer and a "workman". If the individual is a manager, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction ab initio, rendering its award bad in law.

The individual cannot seek remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act (e.g., Labour Courts/Tribunals). They must pursue civil court remedies (e.g., suit for wrongful termination/damages under contract law) or remedies under specific State Shops & Establishments legislation

Yes, a employee who is/was working as managerial/supervisory cadre does not qualify as a workman under provision of 2(s) of Industrial Dispute Act 1947.Recently S.C has clarified in their judgment "M/S Bharti Airtel Ltd vs A.S.Raghvendra decided on April 2, 2024.

The posting is short of material facts.

The petitioner‟s in its affidavit in opposition has annexed the curriculum vitae of the employee put up by him on www.naukri.com and www.monster.com, wherein he has provided his nature of work with L&T Limited (petitioner) as follows:-

“Lead Engineer / Designer - Piping & PDMS.

Design      &      detail     Engineering     for     Bhagyam      field development-Well Pad for Cairn Energy (UK).

Guiding in the Preparation of Plot Plans, Equipment Layout & Piping G.A.D & Reviewing............................................................ ”

This proves that the employee was not a „workman‟ and as such could not have raised an industrial dispute. The reference is thus not maintainable.

Duties of the employee falls within the definition of "workman" in terms of Section 2(s) of the Industrial DeiputesAct, 1947 wherein

Supreme Court: In two appeals filed against the order passed by Orissa High Court, wherein the Court set aside the award of the Labour Court to the extent that the employee is to be reinstated and to be paid compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu of back wages, while upholding the finding of the Labour Court that the employee falls under the definition of “workman” as given in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘ID Act’) the division bench of Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan*, JJ. set aside the order of the High Court confirming the finding of the Labour Court to the extent that the employee was a “workman” within the meaning of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act; and affirmed the same, insofar as setting aside the award of the Labour Court to reinstate the employee in service and pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu of back wages.

Consult a local senior lawyer with relevant case file.