In the case of Bharti Airtel vs AS Raghavendra, the Supreme Court analysed whether the respondent qualified as a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). The court examined the respondent’s role, appointment letter, supervisory duties over four account managers, and prior work experience. The respondent was appointed as Regional Business Head (South) – Government Enterprise Services at Bharti Airtel, with an annual package of ₹22 lakh.

The respondent resigned on March 24, 2011, and this was accepted on May 9 with a final settlement of ₹5.92 lakh. Nineteen months later, he alleged his resignation was forced and filed a petition. The Karnataka government referred the dispute to the labour court, which ruled that the respondent was not a ‘workman’. The respondent challenged this, and a single judge of the Karnataka High Court partially allowed his petition, stating he did not have managerial powers like appointing or dismissing employees. This decision was upheld by the Division Bench, which led Bharti Airtel to approach the Supreme Court.

The apex court held that the respondent was not a ‘workman’ under the ID Act. His role, as described in his appointment letter, was managerial, involving supervision and control over employees, adherence to office norms, and handling responsibilities indicative of a managerial position. The absence of powers to appoint or dismiss employees was not the sole criterion for determining his status as a ‘workman’.

The court noted that reappraising of facts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is permissible only when there is significant infirmity in the tribunal’s order. The court found no such infirmity in this case.

Addressing the respondent’s claim of forced resignation, it concluded that dissatisfaction with performance ratings or work conditions does not constitute coercion. The employer’s prerogative in performance evaluations was upheld.

The court emphasised that multiple factors determine ‘workman’ status under the Act, and the absence of certain managerial powers alone is insufficient. The judgement underscores employer autonomy in employment terms and clarifies that dissatisfaction or unmet expectations do not imply forced resignation.

More Like This

Published on July 28, 2024