25% OFF on all LCI Courses. Offer valid till 5th Oct. Use Code: DUS25
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

  • It was held In the case of Santram Spinners Limited v/s Babubhai Magandas Patel that a person working in ‘supervisory’ cannot raise an industrial dispute under the industrial dispute act.
  • The supervisor use to get ‘consultancy fees’ and not salary. Hence, he cannot be termed as workman. 
  • The petitioner submitted that the respondent did not fall under the category of workman in section 2[s] since he did not get salary and was a consultant.
  • The Labour court failed to look into this. The Gujarat High Court squashed the labour court’s order- bench comprising of justice Sandeep Bhatt 
  • The respondent had raised an industrial dispute. He claimed that he was working as a manager in-charge in the company and received a salary of rupees 9000 per month. 
  • The labour court ruled in his favour and asked for reinstatement and back wages. 
  • The applicant further appealed in high court that the respondent was not a workman. He was a maintenance consultant who was paid consultant fees and had failed to produce any documentary evidence such as TDS statement, appointment letter, bills to bolster his contention.
  • Further the respondent had no evidence with him to prove that he is a workman.
  • On the contrary the bench found ample of evidence to prove that he was a managerial consultant. 
  • The high held that the learned labour court had done a grave error in ruling the decision in favour of the petitioner before the appeal and has also erred in giving findings that since TDS is deducted by the petitioner company and therefore, the respondent is workman, who is serving in the petitioner institute
  • The HC further said that this finding of the learned Labour Court is against the settled proposition of law and is highly erroneous.
  • the High Court affirmed that there was no evidence that the Respondent had been working for more than 240 days during the year preceding termination.
  • Considering the facts the High Court had the labour court’s order squashed.
"Loved reading this piece by Krisha Mehta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

  Views  40  Report

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query