The Supreme Court of India has ruled that an employee cannot dictate their employment terms to their employer. In a recent case (M/s Bharti Airtel Limited v. A.S. Raghavendra), the Court emphasised that the employer’s competent authority holds final say regarding appraisals and ratings.
Employee resignation deemed not forced
The case centred on an employee (Raghavendra) who resigned from Bharti Airtel, later claiming the resignation was involuntary. The Karnataka High Court had partially upheld Raghavendra’s claim, but the Supreme Court overturned this decision.
The Court analysed Raghavendra’s resignation letter, noting it lacked evidence of coercion. While Raghavendra expressed dissatisfaction with his performance evaluation, the Court found this did not constitute forced resignation.
Employee classification and authority
The Supreme Court further clarified the classification of ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court held that the mere absence of power to appoint, dismiss, or conduct disciplinary inquiries wouldn’t solely determine ‘workman’ status. This distinction is crucial, as ‘workman’ status grants access to specific dispute resolution mechanisms.
High Court intervention and burden of proof
The Court also commented on the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny for Labour Court decisions reaching the High Court. It emphasised that the High Court should only intervene when a Tribunal’s order exhibits a significant level of infirmity.
The Court additionally clarified that the phrase ‘not of his free will’ doesn’t automatically imply employer coercion. Raghavendra’s complaints about his rating, including an approach to the company’s Ombudsman, suggested dissatisfaction rather than forced resignation.
The Court highlighted the lack of any direct allegations of bias or victimisation against the employer. Raghavendra’s grievances may not have been addressed to his satisfaction, but this wouldn’t necessarily translate to a forced resignation.
Ruling and significance
The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that Raghavendra did not qualify as a ‘workman’ under the Act. Consequently, referring the dispute to the Labour Court was deemed inappropriate. This decision reinforces the employer’s authority in performance evaluations and highlights the specific criteria used to determine ‘workman’ status under Indian labour law.
