As per the ID Act, any person employed by any industry to do manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, is a ‘workman’.
The Labour Court in Chennai has passed a judgment, which can set a precedent for many such cases in future. It has termed a ‘techie’ working with the software company, HCL, as a ‘workman’. This will bring the employees of software companies under the ID (Industrial Dispute) Act.
The Court said that as per the ID Act, any person employed in any industry doing any kind of manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work, for hire or reward, is a ‘workman’. K Ramesha had joined HCL Technologies as senior service programmer on August 20, 2009. He also got an appraisal a year later as he was doing good work.
However, in 2013, he was asked to leave merely because he had failed to improve his performance despite counselling. However, the company did not provide any memo or documents nor did it pursue any further investigation. In absence of an unsatisfactory answer from his company, Ramesha had approached the Labour Court in Chennai.
The counsel from HCL had argued that K Ramesha, is not a ‘workman’ and hence, he will not come under the purview of the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act, which covers most of the manufacturing sector and other establishments. Moreover, he was in the supervisory cadre, drawing a salary of more than Rs10,000 per month.
The counsel argued that, though the complainant was good at his job initially, he had failed to improve his efficiency and performance in the long run. The argument was that he was removed from the job after being given several opportunities for improvement. The Court overruled this argument saying that the company had not produced any evidence to show that the failure to improve performance or to measure up to expectations or standing orders, would amount to an act of misconduct.
The Court has now directed HCL to reinstate Ramesha and also pay back all the missed wages, ever since his termination was announced.
5 Comments
None should be condemned unheard is the law as per the Indian Constitution and this finds a place in the ID Act. HCL
had erred in this case and I tend to agree with the judgement of the Labour Court in this case. It is not the JOB TITLE but the nature of duties and resposibilities an individual is required to perform is the litmus test to determine whether a
person is holding a Managerial position or not.
This judgement will be a path breaking one for the employees who are victimised on instant termination on account of loss of business by the IT companies.
Merely designated an employee with a high sounding designation and giving a fat salary is not the criteria. The employee must have discretionary powers of taking some vital decisions. There must be employees reporting to him. A supervisor with no one to supervise is definitely a workman under the ID Act.
Can you provide us with more information about the case?
case number, name of the parties,etc.
Where can I get the judgement copy?