Satej N. Malaw v. Frankfurt Trade Fair India Pvt. Ltd

O R D E R

(i) The reference is answered partly affirmative.

(ii) Second party is entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) towards compensation.

(iii) Copy of Award be sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Mumbai for information and necessary action."

¶10In my opinion, the above reasoning cannot be said to be in any manner perverse in the facts and circumstances of the case so that the award of compensation needs to be interfered, taking an overall view of the matter.

¶11At this stage, it is required to be observed that the employer has already paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner in compliance of the order passed by the Labour Court and thus, in regard to the compliance of clause (ii) of the operative directions (supra), on which there is no dispute whatsoever. Thus, in my opinion, in the aforesaid circumstances, the dispute between the parties insofar as the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is concerned, is required to put to a quietus, as the impugned order itself has stood implemented.

¶12There is a cross writ petition filed by the employer in which a very limited contention has been urged, which is in regard to the issue no. 1 as decided by the Labour Court, namely, as to whether the petitioner proves that he is a 'workman' as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which has been answered in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the issue ought to have been decided against the petitioner-employee and in favour of the employer, as the petitioner was not a workman considering the post on which he was appointed as also the nature of work he was required to undertake. In support of such contention, Mr. Shukla has drawn the Court's attention to the relevant extract of the evidence of the petitioner, which according to Mr. Shukla would indicate that the nature of duties discharged by the petitioner was certainly of a employee as Manager and not as a workman.

¶13The Labour Court has considered the evidence on record in answering the said issue in favour of the petitioner. The Labour Court has observed that the petitioner was having limited authority to access the database, although it was alleged that he was causing a breach of security by wrongfully accessing the data. It was also observed that there was no material to show that the petitioner had authority to make purchases for the company frequently. It is further observed that the policy manual (Exh. C-12) of the employer-company does not provide about work area of the petitioner and that the employer had not placed on record the appointment letter to show duties and authorities possessed by the petitioner. On the analysis of the evidence including the cross-examination of the petitioner, it has been observed that the purported admission as claimed by the employer did not suggest about his working in a managerial cadre. It is further observed that the witness of the employer had also admitted that the petitioner was working under his supervision, instruction and guidance. It is well settled that the nomenclature and/or title of a post is not determinative of the status of an employee as to whether he is a workman or not, unless there is sufficient evidence to show that the duties being discharged are not that of a workman. The learned Labour Judge, on examining the evidence, has held that the petitioner was a workman within the definition as contained under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In my opinion, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court cannot be held to be in any manner perverse or contrary to the materials on record. As this is the only challenge as raised in the petition filed by the employer, in my opinion, the challenge needs to fail. The employer's Writ Petition is required to be dismissed.

¶14Before parting, it needs to be observed that although this Court has held that the resignation as tendered by the petitioner needs to be accepted and it could be said that it was in any manner forced on the petitioner, the order passed by the Labour Court granting compensation to the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, taking an overall view of the matter, ought not to be faulted. The employer also has accepted such order and has already made a payment of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner. Thus, insofar as the employer is concerned, as fairly submitted by Mr. Shukla, the payment of compensation ought not to be said to be any grievance and/or prejudice to the employer, merely because this Court has come to a conclusion that the resignation in question of the petitioner could not be said to be forceful.

¶15In view of the above observations, the dispute between the parties in both these proceedings is required to be put to an end. The petitions are accordingly disposed of by putting a quietus to a matter on Rs.1,50,000/- being received by the petitioner, thereby closing all contentions of the petitioner as also the employer in terms of what has been observed above.

¶16Disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

(G. S. KULKARNI, J)

Vidya Amin IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1290 OF 2020 Satej N. Malaw … Petitioner Versus Frankfurt Trade Fair India Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 13779 OF 2022 Messe Frankfurt Trade Fair India Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner Versus Satej N. Malaw …Respondent Mr. I.A. Saiyed for the petitioner in WP/1290/2020. Mr. Mahesh Shukla a/w. Mr. Niraj Prajapati for the petitioner in WP(L)/13779/2022. _______________________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI, J. DATED: _______________________ P.C. 1. Rule on both the petitions. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the respondent waives service. By consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. Writ Petition No. 1290 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner/employee, Writ Petition (St.) No. 13779 of 2022 has been filed by the employer. The challenge in both these petitions is to an award dated 30 July, 2019 passed by the 10th Labour Court at Mumbai, published on 1 November, 2019. VIDYA SURESH AMIN by VIDYA SURESH AMIN Date: 2023.02.27 13:09:10 +0530 Facts: 3. Mr. Satej N. Malaw, the petitioner-employee was employed by Frankfurt Trade Fair India Pvt. Ltd. (for short "the employer") on 24 November, 2014. The post as held by him was titled as "Manager". He was required to work on the database along with Database Associates. It appears from the record that after a period of about one year and two months of his employment, certain disputes had arisen between the parties inasmuch as he was called by one Mr. Mahajan, Human Resource Head of the Company to tender resignation. It was Mr. Mahajan's grievance that the petitioner-employee wrongfully used his password to access the data which was without authority. The case of the petitioner-employee was that he was threatened with termination notice. He hence resigned on 14 January, 2016. The resignation tendered by the petitioner-employee to the employer came to be accepted on the very same day. The case of the petitioner is that on 15 January, 2016, he addressed an email to his superior informing him of his forceful resignation. This mail, however, was not replied. He again addressed an email to the superior stating that he intends to withdraw the resignation, as it was forcefully obtained. It appears from the record and more particularly from the evidence of the petitioner that post the resignation, he applied to the employer for payment of Provident Fund dues. In the petitioner-employee's deposition before the Labour Court, he stated as under: "25. I have applied for my payments of provident fund after cessation of job with first party and I have received the same. I can file copy of letter issued to provident fund authority . It is not true to say that after cessation of my employment with first party I had received one month's notice pay. It is true to say that I have not mentioned about receiving of provident fund amount in my statement of claim as well as in affidavit." 4. The petitioner-employee felt aggrieved of his services being put to an end by the employer, which according to the petitioner amounted to termination of his employment. He accordingly approached the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act for a reference to be made to the Labour Court for adjudication of the disputes in regard to his termination wherein he prayed for a reference to be made for reinstatement with continuity of services with full backwages with effect from 14 January, 2016. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour in exercise of powers under section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act made a reference to the Labour Court at Mumbai, which was received by the Labour Court on 1 December, 2016. 5. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court after granting opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and after hearing the parties on their reference decided such Reference. The operative part of the order is required to be noted, which reads thus: "O R D E R