NDLI: M/s Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. A.s. Raghavendra

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Workman
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.2(s) – “workman” – When not – Respondent appointed in the appellant-Company as Regional Business Head (South) in the grade of Senior Manager (B2)-Sales performed managerial and supervisory work, if a “workman”: Held: No – Respondent himself described his position as a Member of the senior management cadre, in-charge of supervising the Account Managers in the four Southern States – He performed a supervisory role over the managers and was the Assessing Manager of his team, which consisted of Managers in the B-1 & B-2 Levels – Respondent had perks such as Special Allowance, Car Hiring Charges, Petrol and Maintenance, Driver’s Salary etc. – Labour Court vide a detailed order and discussion held the respondent not to be covered under “workman” as per s.2(s) – However, the Single Judge did not appreciate the discussion by the Labour Court and the available evidence in their true perspective, relying mainly upon the judgment in Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cable India (P.) Ltd. [1984] 3 SCR 169 – Absence of power to appoint, dismiss or conduct disciplinary enquiries against other employees was not the only reason for the Court to conclude in Ved Prakash Gupta that the appellant therein was a “workman” – Mere absence of power to appoint, dismiss or hold disciplinary inquiries against other employees, would not and could not be the sole criterion to determine such an issue – Nature of duties performed by the respondent do not place him under the cover of s.2(s) – Impugned judgment passed by Division Bench of the High Court as well as the judgment of the Single Judge holding respondent to be a “workman”, set aside – Judgment of the Labour Court holding that respondent was performing the role of a Manager and thus was not a “workman” within the meaning of s.2(s), restored – Respondent not a “workman” and thus, reference to the Labour Court under the ID Act against the appellant would not be maintainable. [Paras 5, 21, 22-25 and 29] Constitution of India – Articles 226, 227 – Re-appraisal of facts – Respondent working as Regional Business Head (South)- Government Enterprise Services in the grade of Senior Manager (B2)-Sales resigned from the appellant- Company however, later filed petition before the Deputy Labour Commissioner alleging that his resignation was forceful – Dispute referred to the Labour Court by appropriate Government – Labour Court rejected the reference holding that respondent was performing the role of a Manager and thus was not a “workman” within the meaning of s.2(s), ID Act – Writ Petition filed by respondent challenging the said award – Award set aside by Single Judge – Appellant filed appeal, dismissed by Division Bench – Appellant contended that the approach of the Single Judge of re-appreciating the entire evidence and coming to a fresh conclusion was not proper while exercising jurisdiction u/Articles 226 and 227: Held: As regards the power of the High Court to re-appraise the facts, it cannot be said that the same is completely impermissible u/Articles 226 and 227 – However, there must be a level of infirmity greater than ordinary in a Tribunal’s order, which is facing judicial scrutiny before the High Court, to justify interference – Such a situation did not prevail in the present facts. [Para 26]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Neutral Citation	2024 INSC 265
Petitioner	M/s Bharti Airtel Limited
Respondent	A.s. Raghavendra
SCR	[2024] 4 S.C.R. 100
Judgement Date	2024-04-02
Case Number	5187

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

M/s Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. A.s. Raghavendra

Please Log-in to view this content

Susela Padmavathy Amma Vs. M/s Bharti Airtel Limited

Competition Commission of India Vs. Bharti Airtel Limited and Others

Union of India Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors.

Bharti Cellular Limited (now Bharti Airtel Limited) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 57, Kolkata and Another

Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. Union of India

V G Jagdishan Vs. M/s. Indofos Industries Limited

Bharti Airtel Limited and Another Vs. Vijaykumar V. Iyer and Others

M/s. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Gangadhar and Others

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity, Mangalore Vs. Pahal Singh

M/s Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. A.s. Raghavendra

M/s Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. A.s. Raghavendra

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Susela Padmavathy Amma Vs. M/s Bharti Airtel Limited

Competition Commission of India Vs. Bharti Airtel Limited and Others

Union of India Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors.

Bharti Cellular Limited (now Bharti Airtel Limited) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 57, Kolkata and Another

Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. Union of India

V G Jagdishan Vs. M/s. Indofos Industries Limited

Bharti Airtel Limited and Another Vs. Vijaykumar V. Iyer and Others

M/s. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Gangadhar and Others

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity, Mangalore Vs. Pahal Singh

M/s Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. A.s. Raghavendra