The judgment confirms that it is incumbent on the employee to specifically plead and establish the nature of duties undertaken to claim the status of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Upholding prior precedent and affirming the Single Bench order, the judgment clarifies evidentiary and pleading standards essential for maintainability in service termination disputes before Labour Courts. This principle is binding on subordinate courts and has significant practical implications for all industrial dispute matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/2489/2025 of SUCHITRA NATH BEHERA Vs PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, GURUGRAM AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011279542025 |
| Date of Registration | 25-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Division Bench: MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for lower courts within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms order of Single Bench remanding case to Labour Court |
| Type of Law | Labour/Service Law, Industrial Disputes Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether the claimant must specifically plead and establish the nature of duties to claim status as ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for reinstatement claims. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that merely asserting status as ‘workman’ is insufficient; the specific nature of duties performed must be pleaded and proved by the claimant. The Labour Court can adjudicate the issue of illegal termination only after the ‘workman’ status is established based on detailed averments and evidence regarding duties. The Single Bench was correct in remanding the matter for fresh adjudication with this direction. The procedural requirement ensures that only individuals fulfilling the statutory definition can claim relief under the Act. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant, an Assistant Store at respondent’s establishment drawing Rs.16,648/- per month, challenged the termination by filing a claim before the Labour Court stating only that he was a ‘workman.’ The employer denied this, stating he held a supervisory post. The Labour Court reinstated him, but the Single Bench remanded the case for failure to specify the nature of duties. The Division Bench concurred and ordered expedited adjudication. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana High Court’s jurisdiction, all Labour Courts in relevant territorial scope |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Labour Tribunals, and possibly Supreme Court on similar questions of pleading and evidence in industrial disputes |
| Follows | The Single Bench order remanding the matter for specific pleadings on ‘workman’ status |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that claimants must specifically plead and substantiate the nature of their duties in order to assert ‘workman’ status under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Establishes that mere assertion of holding a designated position (e.g., Assistant Store) does not ipso facto confer ‘workman’ status.
- The employer’s denial and assertion of supervisory status must be met with particularized averments and, where necessary, evidence.
- Lawyers must ensure clear, detailed pleadings on factual job duties for success before Labour Courts.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The judgment begins by noting that the appellant merely stated he was a ‘workman’ but did not elaborate on the nature of his duties or whether he performed administrative or supervisory roles.
- The employer specifically denied the appellant’s ‘workman’ status and asserted that the post was supervisory.
- The Division Bench concurred with the Single Bench that it is essential, as a matter of pleading and evidence, for the claimant to specify duties to establish eligibility under Section 2(s).
- Only after such foundational facts are established can the adjudication on illegality of termination proceed.
- The judgment affirms that remanding the matter was the correct approach for ensuring a full and fair determination.
- The court also directed expedited disposal given the lengthy pendency of the dispute.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The appellant’s services were illegally terminated.
- Asserted in the claim petition that he was a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Contended the Labour Court had rightly reinstated him with back wages.
- Argued there was no justification for the Single Bench to remand the case for fresh adjudication.
- Additionally requested that the Labour Court be directed to decide the claim petition in a time-bound manner due to prolonged litigation.
Respondent
- Specifically denied in written statement that the appellant was a ‘workman.’
- Asserted that the appellant was working on a supervisory post.
Factual Background
The appellant, employed as Assistant Store with respondent No.2 and earning Rs.16,648/- per month, was terminated from service. He filed a claim petition before the Labour Court, challenging the termination and seeking reinstatement. In the petition, he pleaded he was a ‘workman’ as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, he did not elaborate on his actual duties. The employer denied he was a ‘workman’, stating he worked in a supervisory capacity. The Labour Court reinstated the appellant, but the Single Bench remanded the matter back, citing insufficient pleadings on the nature of duties.
Statutory Analysis
- The court examined Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which defines ‘workman.’
- Emphasized the necessity for pleadings to specify not just the job title, but actual duties performed, for determining whether an individual qualifies as a ‘workman’ under the statute.
- No discussion on interpretation beyond the application of Section 2(s) to pleaded facts.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court directed the Labour Court to dispose of the remanded claim petition expeditiously, preferably within four months from receipt of the order, due to prolonged pendency.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and follows existing legal principles requiring specific pleadings on duties undertaken for claims to ‘workman’ status under the Industrial Disputes Act.
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – Directions issued for expeditious decision within four months in light of long-standing litigation.