CASE NAME: THE MANAGEMENT, M/s. EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD. Vs LENIN KUMAR RAY
CASE NO.: CIVIL APPEAL No. _________OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.12876 of 2024)
DATED: 21 October, 2024
QUORUM: R.MAHADEVAN, J.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The newspaper establishment, M/s. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd, appointed an employee as a Junior Engineer (Electronics and Communication) on June 7, 1997, and confirmed him in that position on July 13, 1998. The employee was promoted to Assistant Engineer (E&C) on May 1, 2000, and got regularised in this position on May 1, 2001. He was relieved from service with effect from 8th October 2003 and was paid one month’s salary of Rs. 6,995.65 as in lieu of notice.
Aggrieved by the termination, he approached the Labour authorities seeking relief. The conciliation proceeding ultimately resulted in failure, and the matter escalated into an industrial dispute under I.D. Case No. 27 of 2007. On 22nd September, 2010, the Labour Court passed an award in favour of the workman, ordering reinstatement with Rs. 75,000 as compensation to recognize him as a ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act.
It is a writ petition filed in the High Court challenging judgment of management and partly modifying that passed by Labour Court.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
- Whether Lenin Kumar qualifies as a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, given his supervisory role and salary exceeding the statutory threshold at the time of his termination.
- Whether the management followed the proper legal and contractual procedures in terminating Lenin Kumar’s employment by paying one month’s salary in lieu of notice, as stipulated in his employment contract.
- Whether Lenin Kumar is entitled to reinstatement and compensation, as initially awarded by the Labour Court, despite the termination being based on contract terms and his exclusion from “workman” status.
- Whether the 2010 amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act, which increased the salary threshold for supervisory roles to Rs. 10,000 per month, can be applied retrospectively to a termination that took place in 2003.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: A “workman” is defined as any person employed to do any skilled or unskilled, manual, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work other than managerial or administrative work or a supervisory work drawing a wages threshold.
- Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act: Requires prior notice or compensation to employees before dismissal and protection against unfair dismissals in case of industrial disputes.
CONTENTIONS BY THE EMPLOYEE
The learned senior counsel appearing for the employee contended that the employee was a “workman” within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that without reason, his services were terminated and he was given no opportunity to defend himself neither was there any contract of service that his services will be terminated on 08.10.2003. Thus, there was a clear violation of the provision of law in terminating the services of the employee.
The counsel argued that the Labour Court had correctly ruled that the employee was unlawfully dismissed when it ordered that the management must reinstate him. In resolving this, the High Court did not give full regard to the decision of the Labour Court as laid down in the order but instead resolved to set aside the order to have him reinstated at work and to instead compensate him monetarily as opposed to back wages. He further argued that the finding by the High Court in this regard should be overturned.
In the form of typed set of papers, the learned senior counsel for the employee made the following submissions. First, the counsel pleaded that the subsidiary uncertainty relating to facts or legal interpretation must always favor the weaker party, that is, the laborers in this case. Also, it was insisted that the court in writing does not possess the jurisdiction to interfere with the established facts as ordered by lower courts. In the determination of who a “workman” is, the counsel was not of the opinion that it should only be based on such mere job titles, but rather more so in the character of such work performed. Moreover, having a junior employee does not confer such supervisory or managerial status on that person. Lastly, with wrongful termination cases, reinstatement is usually accompanied by an award of back wages, and thus the importance of having fair treatment in the workplace is underlined.
By making the above submissions, the learned counsel prayed to allow the appeal filed by the employee and dismiss the appeal filed by the management and consequently, direct the management to reinstate the employee in service with full back wages.
CONTENTIONS BY THE MANAGEMENT
The management’s senior counsel argued that the employee, initially appointed as a Junior Engineer and later promoted to Assistant Engineer, held positions in administrative and supervisory roles. At the time of his promotion in May 2001, he was earning a salary of Rs. 6,805.45, and when his services were terminated on 08.10.2003, it was because his position was no longer required by the management. The counsel further argued that under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the employee could not be termed to be a “workman” since at the time of dismissal, his pay had exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs. 1,600. It is wrongly applied the amendment of 2010 by the High Court wherein the salary limit has risen up to Rs.10,000 and has wrongly sustained the finding of the Labour Court that the employee is a “workman.”
Further, they argue that the employee’s termination was under his contract’s provisions mandating him to either give one-month notice or his salary in lieu of notice. Management met that obligation by paying one month’s salary, a payment the employee received and cashed without any objections. Accordingly, no procedural violation had taken place. The counsel pleaded before the court to uphold the appeal filed by the management and to dismiss the claims filed by the employee in relation to reinstatement and back wages.
JUDGEMENT
In the case of Lenin Kumar Ray v. M/s Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd., the Supreme Court addressed two appeals concerning the termination of an employee. Lenin Kumar had been appointed as a Junior Engineer and further promoted as Assistant Engineer, was given a one-month salary in lieu of notice of his relief when he was relieved in the month of October 2003. The Labour Court had ordered in his favour to reinstate him along with an award of compensation of Rs. 75,000 and thus entitled him to be considered as a “workman” under the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court discharged the reinstatement and monetary compensation but confirmed his classification as a “workman.” On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Lenin Kumar had not satisfied the definition of a “workman” under the pre-amended provisions of Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act as his salary had crossed the said threshold on the date of his dismissal. The Court dismissed the appeal of the employee and allowed the appeal of the management, denying reinstatement as well as compensation and declared that the termination was procedurally valid.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Lenin Kumar Ray vs. M/s Express Publications points out the importance of the definition of “workman” and the validity of procedural measures in termination. The Court observed that despite holding supervisory responsibilities, Lenin Kumar, cannot be termed as a “workman” in terms of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act as at the time of his dismissal, he received a salary in excess of the threshold prescribed in the Act. In addition, the Court upheld the validity of the process of termination, holding that the process conformed to the requirements of the employment agreement, which stipulated that Kumar should be paid an amount of one month’s salary as compensation for notice. In the judgment, the emphasis is towards the strict construction of “workman” status and the observance of terms of the contract in any dispute relating to work.
CONCLUSION
In this order, the Supreme Court rendered it important to understand the meaning of the term “workman” as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, along with the importance of fulfillment of employment contracts. Therefore, it can be noted that the case emphasized the fact that procedural correctness in termination, including proper classification of employees is of prime importance in the resolution of the issues pertaining to employment disputes. It further clarifies the aforementioned amendment to labor laws can be applied retrospectively only if it is so stated, otherwise, there would be inconsistency and lack of justice in the law.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY- TEJASRI RAO
