Responsibility For Proving One's Classification As A 'workman' Under The ID Act Lies With The Employee, Not The Management - Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court recently ruled that the responsibility of proving one's classification as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act lies with the employee, rather than the management of the organization. Justice Suman Shyam made the decision while overturning a ₹36 lakh award granted by the labor court in favor of an employee.

Furthermore, the bench noted that the labor court had failed to evaluate whether the applicant, who held a managerial position, qualified as a "workman" as defined by the Act. As a result, the case was sent back to the labor court for a fresh decision, ideally to be made within six months.

The High Court addressed a petition filed by the Industrial Cooperative Bank Limited, challenging an ex-parte order from the labour court. The order had nullified the bank's decision to terminate an employee accused of involvement in financial irregularities and ordered the reinstatement of the employee, who had previously held an administrative and human resources position. Additionally, the order mandated the payment of back wages and service benefits that were owed to the employee.

The bank had abstained from appearing before the labour court due to the dismissal of its objection regarding the viability of the proceedings. Furthermore, the bank's Managing Director was involved in ongoing criminal proceedings at the time.

The High Court acknowledged the well-established principle that matters of jurisdiction are fundamental to legal proceedings and can be raised at any stage. The judge further observed that the labour court had not provided adequate justification for its conclusion that the employee's termination was unlawful, and had conducted the proceedings in a perfunctory manner. The judge emphasized that the labour court must determine the fairness and propriety of the internal investigation conducted against the employee.

Subsequently, the bank's appeal was granted, leading to the annulment of the previously mandated compensation payment issued by the labour court.