SMT. S. ANANDHI v. THE MANAGEMENT WINTAC LIMITED, 54/1, BOODHIHAL VILLAGE, NELAMANGALA

(BY SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 27.09.2018 AT ANNEXURE-K AND HOLD THE PETITIONER TO BE A WORKMAN AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9384 WP No. 5056 of 2019 ORDER The petitioner, ex-employee of respondent- Management is before this Court, questioning correctness and legality of the Award dated 27.09.2018 in I.D.No.20/2014 on the file of the I Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, by which, the petitioner's challenge to her termination is rejected.

2. Heard Ms. Sarojini Muthanna.K., learned counsel for the petitioner through video conference and learned counsel Sri. B.R.Prashanth for the respondent, who is present before this Court. Perused writ petition papers.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed under order dated

30.01.2004. It is submitted that the petitioner worked till

23.11.2013 on which date, the respondent-Management refused work to the petitioner. The petitioner raised dispute in I.D.No.20/2014. The Labour Court among other issues, framed issue as to "Whether the second party proves that first party is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9384 WP No. 5056 of 2019 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? And also dispute raised by the first party is not an industrial dispute?" The Labour Court answered the said issue in the 'Affirmative' and held that the petitioner is not a workman and rejected her reference.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Award is totally erroneous and is the result of non-consideration of materials on record. Learned counsel would further submit that the designation is not the criteria to determine the status of a workman and the Labour Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner was performing clerical duties and not the duties of a Supervisor or Manager. Further, learned counsel referring to Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short '1947 Act') would submit that the material on record and the evidence would indicate that the petitioner was performing clerical duties and MW.1 has admitted that standing orders were applicable to the petitioner. In that circumstance, the Labour Court is not right in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a workman. Thus, she prays for allowing the writ petition. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9384 WP No. 5056 of 2019

5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. Prashanth would support the Award passed by the Labour Court. Further, learned counsel invites attention of this Court to order of appointment at Annexure-A dated 30.01.2004 and submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as "Accounts Executive" and condition No.10 of service made it clear that appointment/services being mainly of Management and Supervisory capacity. Further, learned counsel would also submit that subsequently the petitioner was promoted as Accounts Manager and she was drawing a salary of Rs.4,46,252/- per annum. The petitioner was working as Supervisor in Accounts Department and many employees were working under the petitioner, which is admitted by the petitioner in her cross-examination. Learned counsel would submit that based on the materials on record and taking note of the nature of work performed by the petitioner, the Labour Court rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the 1947 Act. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9384 WP No. 5056 of 2019

6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to "Whether the impugned award requires interference at the hands of this Court?" Answer to the said point is in the 'Negative' for the following reasons:

7. The petitioner was appointed as Accounts Executive in terms of Annexure-A, order of appointment dated 30.01.2004. A perusal of Annexure-A, appointment letter makes it clear that the petitioner is appointed to the post of Accounts Executive and Condition No.10 of the appointment order abundantly makes it clear that the petitioner services would be mainly of management and in supervisory capacity. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Accounts Manager. The petitioner in her cross- examination admitted that Srimathi, Ravi and Kupendra were working under her and she also admitted that she is senior to them. The petitioner has also admitted that she was doing supervisory work of Accounts Department and relevant - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9384 WP No. 5056 of 2019 admission in the cross-examination at Paragraph No.31 reads as follows: "31. As a Manager Accounts I was doing the work of supervision of work of maintenance of books of accounts, supervision preparation financial statement and over seen financial audit, cost audit and Tax audit of the company. It is not true to suggest that I was checking the invoice of these 3 persons and later on the authority to pass it. Witness states that she was acknowledging the same. It is not true to suggest that on 23.11.2013 I was informed that my work is not required as per the appointment order I was received. It is true to suggest that they have issued the amount and I have enchased the Cheque."

8. Above portion of the cross-examination of the petitioner as WW.1 makes it clear that the petitioner was performing the duties of Accounts Manager and nature of duty was Supervisory. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was performing clerical duties. But no material whatsoever is placed on record to substantiate the said contention. No material is placed on record and nothing is pointed out from the records to say - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:9384 WP No. 5056 of 2019 that the petitioner was performing clerical duties. The Labour Court taking note of the nature of work performed by the petitioner, the salary received i.e., Rs.4,46,252/- per annum by the petitioner as Accounts Manager, is justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the 1947 Act. Moreover, it has also come on record that the petitioner has completed her chartered accountant examination/proficiency. In view of the above circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the Award passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29