M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED versus A.S. RAGHAVENDRA

M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED versus A.S. RAGHAVENDRA

The Supreme Court held that on the evidence (appointment as Senior Manager(B2)-Sales, clause 5.5 describing managerial duties, supervisory role as Assessing Manager of Account Managers, remuneration and perks and prior managerial experience) the respondent was performing a managerial/supervisory role and therefore did not fall within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; the Labour Court's finding to that effect was restored and the High Court and Single Judge judgments holding him to be a workman were set aside.

Parties
Appellant: M/S Bharti Airtel Limited; Respondent: A.S. Raghavendra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No.5187 of 2023 / Appeal to Supreme Court From High Court Judgment (wa No.4067 of 2019)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Workman, Reference to Labour Court, Managerial and Supervisory Work, Supervisory Role, Managerial Capacity, Nature of Duties, Re Appraisal of Facts
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Constitution of India Labour Law Administrative Law Workman Reference to Labour Court Managerial and Supervisory Work Supervisory Role +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S Bharti Airtel Limited

Appellant

A.S. Raghavendra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No.5187 of 2023 / Appeal to Supreme Court From High Court Judgment (wa No.4067 of 2019)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent falls within the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
  2. 2 Whether the High Court rightly re-appreciated evidence under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and interfered with the Labour Court's award

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that on the evidence (appointment as Senior Manager(B2)-Sales, clause 5.5 describing managerial duties, supervisory role as Assessing Manager of Account Managers, remuneration and perks and prior managerial experience) the respondent was performing a managerial/supervisory role and therefore did not fall within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; the Labour Court's finding to that effect was restored and the High Court and Single Judge judgments holding him to be a workman were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 31.03.2022 set aside
  • Judgment of the Single Judge dated 29.11.2019 set aside