Case Title: SMT. N. BHUVANESHWARI Versus THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. AMBUTHIRTHA POWER PRIVATE LTD.,
Case No: 49982/2018
Decided on: 8th April, 2024
Facts of the case
In this case, there is a disagreement about whether Smt. Bhuvaneshwari, the applicant, meets the requirements to be considered a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and, if so, whether M/s. Ambuthirtha Power Private Limited has good reason to fire her. She was declared a “workman” by the Labour Court, which also mandated that the management give her compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. The management countered that Bhuvaneshwari could not be categorized as a “workman” under the ID Act because her position as an Executive Secretary included managerial and supervisory responsibilities. Additionally, the management emphasized that Bhuvaneshwari’s expertise, duties, and pay were consistent with a managerial role rather than a secretarial one.
Appellant’s Contentions
According to the management, Smt. Bhuvaneshwari, the applicant, was handling administrative and supervisory responsibilities instead of clerical work as an Executive Secretary, as demonstrated by her experience, responsibilities, and pay. They contend that the Labour Court erred in granting her compensation and categorizing her as a “workman” in accordance with Section 2(s) of the ID Act without taking into account the factual evidence. Furthermore, as per the management’s assertion, Bhuvaneshwari failed to prove herself as a ‘workman’ under the ID Act, meaning she was not eligible for reinstatement or other benefits, and therefore, the Labour Court should not have decided the termination issue.
Respondent’s Contentions
The respondent, requested compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back pay, and other benefits. In response, the management challenged the termination order and asked for a lump sum payment of Rs. 5,00,000 in order to avoid classifying Bhuvaneshwari as a “workman” under the ID Act. In case , the management’s attorney made several arguments.
Court Analysis and Judgement
The petitioner was mistakenly designated by the Labour Court under the ID Act as a “workman,” even though her job as an Executive Secretary involved administrative and supervisory responsibilities rather than secretarial work. Without taking into account the applicant’s work, which was more suited for a managerial role, the Court granted compensation. The management contended that the applicant’s duties and position were managerial, not clerical, and that the Court’s decision to grant the applicant Rs. 5,00,000 in compensation was unwarranted. This was made clear by the party-in-person.
“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.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace
