Legal recourse for wrongful termination of Manager who is not deemed workman

The manager is not a workman under Sec. 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947. In case of illegal termination by the management, the manager has to approach the civil court for a remedy. Any judgments in vogue in support of this statement may kindly be supplied.

You have not mentioned the grounds on which termination is being considered. Is there a criteria to link the judgments of similar grounds? It is advisable to consult with an advocate practicing in labor laws, as that would help you.

Basically, employment is a contractual relationship between the employer and the employee. As such, the mutual rights and obligations arise only from the terms of the contract of employment. Any breach by either party is a subject matter of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and the forum for redressal is the Civil Court.

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is a special enactment for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. Despite originating from the Law of Contract, the ID Act, 1947, is designed to modify existing contracts between those covered under the Act, namely the employer and the workmen, to ensure industrial peace.

Analyzing the definition of the term "workman" under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947 reveals that individuals employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacities are not considered workmen. The Legislature's intention is to exclude those who do not fall within the workman definition from the Act's application.

If an employed person does not meet the workman criteria as defined in the ID Act, 1947, they cannot seek recourse under the Act for alleged illegal termination. Any claim filed must demonstrate inclusion within the definition clause; otherwise, it will be dismissed. The Tribunal under the Act has the power to set aside termination orders and order reinstatement with back wages and benefits, while the Civil Court can only set aside orders and award damages.

Judicial precedents may not cover every aspect of employment. Therefore, individuals not classified as workmen under the Act must seek remedies for employment grievances based on common understanding alone.

I am very much indebted to your invaluable suggestions. The problem is that when a manager approached the Civil court of competent jurisdiction for his illegal termination without following the due process of law by the employer, the said court asked to explain to the counsel how the court was competent to take the case on file. The counsel explained Sec. 9 of CPC. However, the court was not convinced. He discussed not only the Indian Contract Act but also the Specific Relief Act. When in the court's mind it was an issue related to a worker/employee, and it was the issue to be dealt with by only the labor court, it is necessary to show evidence to the court that it is competent to deal with the case. In this connection, a request was sought. I thank all who have participated in the discussion.

However, I searched and traced one Supreme Court judgment in this connection, which was reiterated in one of the judgments of the A.P. High Court. After the supply of them to the Court, it was convinced and took the case on file. Thank you all once again.

For Cite HR Communities academic interest & will remain indebted to you if you could share the one Supreme Court judgment as reiterated by you in this connection, which was reiterated in one of the judgments of A.P. High Court.

---

For Cite HR Communities academic interest, I would be grateful if you could share the Supreme Court judgment that you mentioned in connection with this topic. This judgment was also referenced in one of the judgments of the A.P. High Court.

Oh, why not, sure.

Premier Automobiles Ltd vs Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke Of... on 26 August 1975. The excerpt is as follows, which helped a lot to clarify my doubt. "If the dispute is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2(K) or within the meaning of section 2A of the Act, it is obvious that there is no provision for adjudication of such disputes under the Act. Civil Courts will be the proper forum." This is in the middle of the verdict. The original paragraph starts from "It would thus be seen" and ends with "enforceable under the Act alone."

Further, it was reiterated in the following A.P. High Court Judgment.

B.V. Rao vs Chittivalasa Jute Mills And Anr. on 13 October 1989. You may find the same paragraph in this judgment also.

Thank you very much for your interest.

Please go through my article "Position regarding jurisdiction of Civil Court vis-a-vis adjudication of rights & obligations created under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947". The article was published in FLR in the year 2018. This will clear a lot of issues.

Thank you very much for the information supplied. It's indeed a good study that was made by you to differentiate between the Tribunal dealing with matters of ID and a Civil court. The problem arose when a Magistrate/Senior Civil judge wanted to produce any provision or judgment of an Apex court of any state or India to show that a manager's illegal termination was to be dealt with by a Civil court and not the Labour Court. All the attempts of my counsel failed as the first option taken by my counsel was Sec. 9 of CPC. Later, he mentioned Or. 37 of CPC; however, he did not convince. When two judgments were shown, wherein it was categorically narrated that employees not covered under Sec. 2k or 2-A of ID Act would have to approach the Civil Court for all their remedies as it is not only applicable to managers but impliedly applicable to all, including managers, it helped a lot to have the case accepted by the judge.

I once again thank you very much for the information supplied to me and request you to keep on educating us. With regards.

Thanks for the concern. May I request you to share in which journal the below-mentioned citation is reported: B.V. Rao vs Chittivalasa Jute Mills And Anr. on 13 October 1989, as said by you.

Just type in Google, and you will get the judgment from Indian Kanoon.

With regards,
Kesavapanda.

The manager, as per the ID Act of 1947, is completely different from the present designation of the manager that is associated. The activities or work performed by the person in the establishment determine whether they are a Manager, Supervisor, or workman. In my suggestion, the aggrieved person should knock on the door of the law to challenge his/her termination or rights under the Act after having had a consultation with a good lawyer. Trying is better than giving up the fight for justice. It is nice of Mr. Sensharma to share good information that "Remedy is available"; one must search for that.