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

Citation: [2024] 4 S.C.R. 100 · Decided: 02-04-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HIMA KOHLI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 16 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 100 : 2024 INSC 265
M/S Bharti Airtel Limited 
v. 
A.S. Raghavendra
(Civil Appeal No.5187 of 2023)
02 April 2024
[Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the respondent would or would not come within the 
definitional stipulation of a “workman” as laid out under Section 
2(s), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Headnotes
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 
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 
101
M/S Bharti Airtel Limited v. A.S. Raghavendra
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]
Case Law Cited
Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur [2011] 
4 SCR 867 : (2011) 6 SCC 584; Suo-Motu Contempt 
Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2021 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 
858; Shankarbhai Nathalal Prajapati v. Maize Products 
(2002) SCC OnLine Guj 143; Suzuki Parasrampuria 
Suitings Private Limited v. Official Liquidator of 
Mahendra Petrochemicals Limited (in Liquidation) 
[2018] 12 SCR 906 : (2018) 10 SCC 707; Muthu 
Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai v. Parithi 
Ilamvazhuthi [2011] 5 SCR 329 : (2011) 5 SCC 496; 
102
[2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
K D Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited [2008] 
10 SCR 454 : (2008) 12 SCC 481; Tularam Manikrao 
Hadge v. Sudars

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.