MR.C.GUPTA versus GLAXOSMITHKLIN PHARMACEUTICAL LIMITED

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 800 · Decided: 25-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MR.C.GUPTA 
v. 
_.... 
GLAXQSMITHKLIN PHARMACEUTICAL LIMITED 
MAY25, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 2(s): 
) 
c 
Industrial Relations Executive-Performing functions of advising 
management preparing draft enquiry report, conducting domestic enquiries, 
tendering of, legal advise; holding conferences with employer's advocates 
and having conditions of service different than those provided for workers 
of employer-Held: He was not a workman as duties undertaken by him were 
not technical in nature but overwhelmingly fell in managerial cadre. 
D 
...... 
(Amendment) AC!, 1984 introducing 'operational' work and making 
'skilled' and 'unskilled' independent categories, unlinked to 'manual'-
Effect of-'-Held, it did not have retrospective effect as (i) there was neither 
y 
express provision regarding that nor any necessary implication or intendment 
thereto either in amending Act or in amendment itself (ii) it did not pertain 
E to procedure but substantially changed scope of definition of "workman" 
whic}i could not be said to be merely declaratory or clarificatory (iii) though 
(Amendment) Act was enacted on 31.8.1982, but notification bringing it into 
effect was issued only subsequently on 21.8.1984 (iv) if employee dismissed 
before amendment came into effect later comes within ambit of amended 
F 
definition of ··workman' and if amendment is given retrospective effect, 
employer becomes punishable/or offence under Section 25 N and Q of 1947 
Act, amounting to his being punishable for an offence which he could not 
1"-
have envisaged on date of dismissal; this would be violative of Article 20(1) 
of Constitution of India, 1950. 
G 
Interpretation of statutes-Amendment-Effect of-Held-It would be 
prospective if it is deemed to have come with effect from a particular day or 
provides for it becoming operative in future. 
Respondent advertised for recruitment to the post of "Industrial 
Relations Executive". The advertisement indicated duties required to be 
( 
H 
800 
C. GUPTA'" GLAXOSMITHKLIN PHARMACEUTICAL LTD. 
801 
J 
performed by the selected candidates. Appellant was appointed to the said 1A 
post. The letter offering the appointment mentioned that the appellant would 
be a member of the Management Staff in Grade 11-A. Clause17 of the said 
letter provided for termination of the appointment by respondent at any time 
and without assigning any reason upon giving not less than three months 
notice in writing or salary in lieu thereof. In accordance with this clause, the B 
services of the appellant came to be terminated on 15.9.1982 on the ground 
that they were no longer required. 
( 
Being aggrieved by termination of his services, the appellant attempted 
to get redressal though Conciliation. On failure therein, the Deputy 
Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) referred the matter for adjudication. c 
Consequently, in 1985, the appellant filed his statement of claim in the Labour 
Court claiming that he was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of 
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He claimed that termination of his services 
was illegal, invalid and void on account of non-compliance of the provisions of 
Section 25N of the Act in as much as no notice or retrenchment compensation 
had been paid to him. He sought the prayer of reinstatement in service with D 
.... 
full back wages with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits . 
The respondent contested claims of appellant. The Labour Court allowed 
the claim of the appellant and he was directed to be reinstated in service with 
continuity in service. It was, however, held that the appellant would be entitled 
E 
neither for any back wages nor future reinstatement from the date of the 
award, though he would be entitled for compensation in lieu thereof. This was 
primarily on the ground that the appellant had given false information at the 
time of appointment. The appellant as well as the respondent filed writ petitions 
before the High Court against the aforesaid award of Labour Court. Both were 
disposed of quashing the award. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
"" 
Appellant contended that (i) the amendment of the expression 'workman' 
under Section 2(5) by amendment thereto dated 21.8.1984 brought him within 
the ambit of the said expression; (ii) in the alternative also he was still within 
that ambit as nature of his work was not manual but technical. 
Respondent conte

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