The petitioner’s supervisory and managerial functions disqualified him from being classified as a ‘workman.’ The nature of duties and responsibilities, rather than designation, determines the status of a workman. The State Government, not the Central Government, was deemed the ‘Appropriate Government’ for ARAI. (Paras 12, 13, 21, 24, 27, 35, 36)

The Court held that the ‘Appropriate Government’ for ARAI is the State Government. The Court upheld the Labour Court’s finding that the petitioner does not qualify as a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The petition was dismissed.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India (COI) – Article 12 – Definition of ‘State’

2. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) – Section 2(s) – Definition of ‘Workman’

3. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(a) – Definition of ‘Appropriate Government’

4. Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Rules 126 and 126A – Vehicle Certification

Subjects:

Appropriate Government – Definition of Workman – Supervisory Capacity – Managerial Role – Termination of Services – Reinstatement – Back Wages – Jurisdiction – Central Government – State Government – Labour Court – Industrial Dispute

Nature of Litigation: The writ petition challenged the Labour Court’s award rejecting the petitioner’s plea for reinstatement and back wages following termination of his services.

Relief Sought: The petitioner sought reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

Reason for Filing the Case: The petitioner contested his termination order dated 8 August 2005 and sought judicial intervention after the Labour Court ruled against him.

Previous Decisions: The First Labour Court, Pune, rejected the reference on 15 May 2024, holding that the ‘Appropriate Government’ for ARAI is the Central Government and that the petitioner does not qualify as a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the ID Act.

Issues:

a) Whether the ‘Appropriate Government’ for ARAI is the Central Government or the State Government. b) Whether the petitioner qualifies as a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the ID Act.

Submissions/Arguments:

Petitioner:

• Argued that the State Government is the ‘Appropriate Government’ for ARAI.

• Contended that the Labour Court erred in its finding that he is not a ‘workman.’

• Claimed his duties were predominantly technical and skilled.

• Emphasized the absence of supervisory or managerial responsibilities.

Respondent:

• Asserted that ARAI operates under the authority of the Central Government.

• Stated that the petitioner’s role was supervisory and managerial in nature.

• Provided evidence of the petitioner’s supervisory functions, including leave recommendations and approval of tour programs.