ABBOTT INDIA LIMITED Vs. DIPAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kavishwar, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The petition challenges the order passed by the learned Labour Court on the preliminary issue "whether the respondent was a 'workman' within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947". The issue was answered by the learned Labour Court by the order dtd. 28/7/2022 in favour of the respondent, holding that since the respondent/complainant was doing the work of promoting the sales of products of the petitioner company, therefore, he was not assigned with any supervisory work to look, appoint or take decision to appoint any further employee under him and therefore, the work which was attributed to the respondent-complaint was not supervisory or managerial in nature (pg.115). The learned Industrial Court in revision by the judgment dtd. 3/1/2023 has dismissed the revision, concurring with the findings of the learned Labour Court that the respondent had no power to recommend and assign work to the subordinate staff or was having any power of purchasing material and/or machinery or was doing any managerial function. (pg.130).

(3.) Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Standard Chartered Bank vrs. Vandana Joshi and anr, 2010(2) Mh.L.J. 22 contends that in a case of a similar nature of work assigned, it was held that the person was not a workman. He also places reliance upon Twenty First Century Printers Limited vrs. K.P.Abraham and another, 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 695 to contend that merely because no one was working under the respondent/complainant, that by itself could not mean that the respondent was a workman.