Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

....1....Comp.(ULP)No.

251/2014
BEFORESHRI.D.S.SHINDE,MEMBER,

INDUSTRIALCOURT,MAHARASHTRA,MUMBAI
COMPLAINT(ULP)NO.251OF2014

Mr.AbhishekPatil,
C/o.KamgarAghadiUnion,
HariGangaNiwas,BrahmeshwarLane,
MalwaniChurch,Malad(W),
Mumbai400095.

....Complainant

Versus

1. M/s.OmnitechInfosolutionsLtd.
2. Mr.AtulHemani,ManagingDirector&CEO,
3. Ms.MahalakshmiChowdhary,ManagerHR,
A13,CrossRoadNo.5,
KondivitaRoad,MarolMIDC,
Andheri(E),Mumbai400093.

.....Respondents

In the matter of complaint of unfair labour


practiceu/s.28r/w.Items9&10ofScheduleIV
oftheMRTU&PULPAct,1971.
CORAM

APPEARANCE :

Shri.D.S.Shinde,Member,
Shri.A.G.Nagvekar,Advocateforthecomplainant.
Smt.PallaviSharma,Advocatefortherespondents.

:JUDGMENTONPRELIMINARYISSUESVIDEEXH.O4:
(Deliveredon12.01.2015)
1.

The complainant Shri. Abhishek Patil was employee in the

respondent establishment. The respondents agreed to pay salary Rs.


62,500/p.m.tothecomplainant.Thecomplainantresignedtheservices

....2....Comp.(ULP)No.251/2014

w.e.f.19.10.2013.Therespondentsdidmadethefullandfinalsettlement
of the legal dues Rs.4,21,773/ payable to the complainant. The
respondentsfailedtopaythesaidamountbesidethepromisetopayon
or before June 2014. Therefore, the complainant filed the present
complaint.Thefactsofthecaseinbriefareasfollows:
2.

TheRespondentNo.1isthecompany,RespondentNo.2Shri.

Atul Hemani is the Director and Respondent No.3 Ms. Mahalakshmi


ChowdharyistheManager. Therearemorethan100employeesinthe
establishment.From30.6.2014therespondentsengagedinunfairlabour
practice.Bytheappointmentletterdated7.1.2011thecomplainantwas
employedintheestablishmentoftherespondentsonthesalaryofRs.
62,500/p.m.plusotherallowances.Therespondentssatisfiedwiththe
performanceofcomplainantandconfirmedintheservicebytheletter
dated 24.8.2011. For better prospects, the complainant gave the
resignation letter dated 5.6.2013. The respondents accepted the
resignationw.e.f.19.10.2013.Thecomplainantreturnedalltheproperty
oftherespondentswithhisresignation.Thetherespondentscalculated
full and final settlement amount Rs.4,21,773/ payable to the
complainantasthelegaldues. Thecomplainantmadeseveralrequests
andsentemails;buttherespondentsdidnotpaythelegaldues.
3.

On 15.1.2014 the Respondent No.3 ManagerHR Ms.

MahalakshmiChowdharysentletteronbehalfoftherespondentsdated
15.1.2014andtoldthecomplainanttowaittill2014. Therespondents
failed and neglected to discharge the legal dues to the complainant.

....3....Comp.(ULP)No.251/2014

Therefore,thecomplainantfiledthepresentcomplaintforthereliefto
declarethattherespondentsengagedinanunfairlabourpracticeunder
Items9&10ofScheduleIVoftheMRTU&PULPAct,1971;desistthe
respondentstocontinuetheunfairlabourpractice,directtherespondents
todischargethelegalduesRs.4,21,773/withinterest@12%andcostof
proceeding Rs.50,000/; also filed the application for interim relief to
restraintherespondentsofshiftinganddisposingtheestablishmentand
machinery.
4.

The respondents filed written statement at Exh.C3 and

resistedthecomplaint.Therespondentscontendedthatthecomplaintis
falseandtheavermentsaredeniedintoto.Therespondentscontended
that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The
complainantisnotemployeewithinthemeaningofdefinition'employee'
u/s.3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Now
Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act) and u/s.2(6) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The salary of the complainant is more than Rs.
6,500/p.m.asstatedu/s.3(13)oftheMaharashtraIndustrialRelations
Act,1946andmorethanRs.10,000/p.m.asstatedinthedefinitionu/s.
2(s)oftheIndustrialDisputesAct,1947.Thecomplainantwasworking
asaManagerandSupervisor.Therefore,thecomplainantisnotentitled
toseektheredressfromtheIndustrialCourt.
5.

The respondents further contended that full and final

settlement of legal dues made on 19.10.2013. On 15.01.2014 the


complainantsentemailandaskedforthepaymentoflegaldues. The

....4....Comp.(ULP)No.251/2014

RespondentNo.3sentreplytowaittill2014.Thecomplaintisnotfiled
withintheperiodof90days,therefore,thecomplaintistimebarredand
notmaintainable.
6.

The Respondent No.1 is a global IT services company

embracingstrongcompetenciesinITOutsourcingandManagedservices
and had delivered measurable business value to the global emerging
enterprisesastheirTechnologyTransformationPartnerinthepast. The
respondents obtained world class quality certifications like ISO
9001:2008,ISO 20000, ISO27001 & 27002 andBS25999. In 2013
owingtoageneralturnaroundintheGlobalITIndustry,itsshareswere
priced at the upward of a hefty Rs.90 per share before the recession
strucktheglobalITIndustry.
7.

The complainant was employee of the Respondent No.1

establishment. TheRespondentNo.2istheDirectorandnotconcerned
withtheappointment,salary,serviceconditionsofthecomplainant.The
claim raised by the complainant is of recovery of money and can be
redressedbyfilingthemoneysuitintheCivilCourt. Therespondents
neverengagedinunfairlabourpractice. Thecomplaintisliabletobe
dismissed.
8.

TherespondentsfiledanapplicationExh.C4andrequested

for framing preliminary issues. The overleaf of the application the


complainant filed reply and prayed to reject the application. After
hearingthearguments,theapplicationExh.C4allowedaspertheorder

....5....Comp.(ULP)No.251/2014

dated31.10.2014.Thepreliminaryissuesframedaspertheorder.The
saidpreliminaryissuesandmyfindingsnotedthereonforthereasons
statedhereinafterareasfollows:
PRELIMINARYISSUES

FINDINGS

1. Whether the Industrial Court has


jurisdictiontoentertainthecomplaint
forunfairlabourpracticeunderItems
9&10ofScheduleIVoftheMRTU&
PULPAct,1971?

Intheaffirmative

2. Does the respondent prove that the


complainant is neither employee nor
workmanandthejurisdictiongoesto
the Civil Court to entertain such
complaint?

Inthenegative

3. Whether the complaint is hit by the


periodoflimitation?

Inthenegative

4. Whatorder?

Aspertheorderbelow.
:REASONS:

9.

In support of the preliminary issues; the respondents filed

affidavitofDirectorShri.AtulHemani,RespondentNo.2videExh.C5.
WhenthesaidDirectordidnotappearforcrossexamination,furtherfiled
affidavitExh.C9oftheCompanySecretaryShri.GauravSharma.Further
reliedontheagreementaboutthetermsandserviceconditionsentered
withthecomplainantAnnexure'A'.
10.

WiththelistExh.U8thecomplainantreliedontheletter

....6....Comp.(ULP)No.251/2014

cumagreement of appointment dated 7.1.2011 fixing the terms and


serviceconditionsofthecomplainant.Theorganizationchartof2013,e
mail dated 15.3.2013 sent by the ManagerHR Ms. Mahalakshmi
Chowdhary to the complainant promising that the legal dues shall be
paid in April 2014. Further with the list Exh.U4, the complainant
producedhisconfirmationinserviceletterdated24.8.2011issuedbythe
ManagerHR Ms. Mahalakshmi Chowdhary; the releaving letter dated
19.10.2013issuedbytheManagerHRMs.MahalaxmiChowdhary;the
datareportofthelegalduesRs.4,21,773/payabletothecomplainant.
TheemailsentbythecomplainanttotheRespondentNo.2Shri.Atul
Hemani,Directordated14.1.2014;theemaildated15.1.2014sentby
theCompanySecretaryShri.GauravSharmatothecomplainant;email
dated14.1.2014sentbythecomplainanttoRespondentNo.2Shri.Atul
Hemanianddated15.01.2014bythecomplainanttotheRespondentNo.
3Ms.MahalaxmiChowdhary,ManagerHR.
11.

AstoIssueNos.1and2:
Heardtheargumentofboththeadvocatesfortherespective

parties.ThePreliminaryIssueNos.1to3areregarding(1)Whetherthe
Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for unfair
labourpracticeunderItems9&10ofScheduleIVoftheMRTU&PULP
Act,1971?(2)Doestherespondentprovethatthecomplainantisneither
employeenorworkmanandthejurisdictiongoestotheCivilCourtto
entertainsuchcomplaint?(3)Whetherthecomplaintishitbytheperiod
oflimitation?


12.

....7....Comp.(ULP)No.251/2014
TherespondentsarereliedontheoralevidenceofCompany

Secretary Shri. Gaurav Sharma at Exh.C9. In the affidavit; it is


undisputedthataspertheemploymentagreementdated7.1.2011the
respondentsemployedthecomplainantasaPresalesConsultantinthe
Grade LV in the TSEnterprise Application & Integration (EAI)
Department of the respondent establishment. The employee Code
No.P1262 was alloted to the complainant. The complainant is B.E.
(Electronics) from Mumbai University. The employment of the
complainantfrom10.01.2011confirmedon24.8.2011. Since9.7.2011
thestatusofconfirmedemployeegiventothecomplainant.AsaPresales
Consultant the role of the complainant was to understand the
requirements of customers, employ his technical expertise to ensure
compilationoftherelevantdocumentationandsupervisingthepersonnel
to ensure the proposals are submitted to customers with all relevant
technicalandcommercialdetailsinadditiontofacilitatethefunctioning
ofthesalesteam.
13.

InhiscrossexaminationvideExh.C9thesaidsolewitnessof

the respondents admitted that the complainant Abhishek Patil was


working as an Engineer in the respondent establishment. He was
concerned with only legal matters being a Company Secretary. The
natureofworkgiventothecomplainantwasoftechnicalnature.Inthe
appointmentletterorintheevidenceonaffidavit,hehasnotstatedname
ofthepersonneloftherespondentcompanywhoseworkthecomplainant
wassupervising. Alsoadmittedthatnowhereintheaffidavitnameof
otheremployeesgivenwhoseworkwasdoneunderthesupervisionof

....8....Comp.(ULP)No.251/2014

the complainant. The respondents closed the evidence by filing


applicationExh.C10.Theagreementoftermsandconditionsofservice
produced with list Exh.U8 by the complainant indicates that the
complainant was appointed asa presales consultant in Grade LV and
employeeCodeNo.P1262wasgiventothecomplainant. Thetermsof
employment commenced from the date of appointment and first six
monthsshallbeprobationperiod. Therespondentsmayterminatethe
employmentbythenoticeofonemonthorinlieuofnoticeperiodby
making payment of gross salary of one month or in the end of the
probationperiodbywrittennoticeof24hoursinsteadof90days.
14.

Thesaidtermsandconditionsregardingtheterminationof

onemonthnoticeor3monthsnoticebeforeretrechmentoftheemployee
areimposedu/s.25FandSection25NoftheIndustrialDisputesAct1947
under head 'Condition Precedent to Retrenchment of Workman it
indicatesthatthecomplainantwasappointedasaskilledemployeein
viewofthedefinitionofSection3(13)oftheBombayIndustrialRelations
Act,1946(nowMaharashtraIndustrialRelationsAct)andu/s.2(s)ofthe
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, it is incumbent on the
respondentstoprovebytheoralordocumentaryevidenceastohowthe
appointment of the complainant was in a managerial, administrative,
supervisoryortechnicalcapacity.Onthatcount;thereisnoevidenceat
alladvancedbytherespondents.
15.

WiththelistExh.U4fullandfinaldatareportissuedbythe

respondents and admitted legal dues payable Rs.4,21,773/ to the

....9....Comp.(ULP)No.251/2014

complainant.Thecomplainantisreleavedfromservicew.e.f.19.10.2013.
Theperiodof4monthspassed;butthelegalduesdidnotpaidbythe
respondents.InthemonthofJanuary2014thecomplainantsenttwoe
mailstotheRespondentNo.2DirectorShri.AtulHemanion7thand14th
January 2014. The Respondent No.3, ManagerHR Ms. Mahalakshmi
ChowdharyinformedthecomplainanttowaittillApril2014forhislegal
dues. Finally on 15.1.2014 the complainant sent email to the
RespondentNo.3Mr.MahalakshmiChowdharyandinformedthathehas
takenloanfromotherpersonstocaterhisneeds,alsoinformedthatlike
him the respondents did not clear dues of the people who left the
organizationinSeptember2012anditwasstrangethathewasinformed
towaittillJune2014togethissalaryfromthemonthofJune2013till
hisreleavingw.e.f.19.10.2013. Thesaiddocumentaryevidenceprima
facie shows that the complainant was skilled employeecumworkman,
thoughheisholdingB.E.(Electronics)degreeofMumbaiUniversity.
16.

The complainant furnished with the list Exh.U8 the

hierarchy and names of the persons in the establishment. The


RespondentNo.2Mr.AtulHemaniGroupCEO,Mr.AjayKotkarCEO
APAC,EDTrautigCEOEurope. ThereafterMr.AvinashPitaleChief
OperatingOfficer,Mr.AtulHemaniCorporateServices,Mr.Anirudha
Modak Business Unit 1 India, Mr. Devarshi Buch Business Unit 2
India,subordinateofMr.AvinashPitaleareviz.NidhishLalDelivery
Head(MS/ISD),ArunaKapadia;thesubordinateofAtulHemaniareRavi
KhuranaFinance&Accounts,FarzanaAdenwallaHumanResources
(HR), Gaurav Sharma Legal and Secretarial; the subordinate of

....10....Comp.(ULP)No.251/2014

AnirudhaModakBusinessUnit1IndiaareFrancisD'SouzaPractice
Head (MS), Mihir Mohanty _ PreSales, Rajish Rajan Practice Head
(AS),PrakashSeemaniPracticeHead(BFSI),AmitPatilZonalHead
(West), Hamendra BansalZonal Head (North), KosalShraffZonal
Head(South),AyanMitraMarketingHead;thesubordinateofDevarshi
BuchBusinessUnitNo.2IndiaistheDeliveryHeadMr.AnilSingh.
17.

While looking to the hierarchy for the administrative and

managerialposts;itisobviousthatnowherenameofthecomplainantis
showntoworkinmanagerial,supervisorycapacity.Thecomplainantwas
employeewithCodeNo.P1262workingforbusinessunitforapplication
serviceinthedepartmentofenterprisesapplicationandintegrationand
designation,subjectmatterexpertgradeLIII,reportingtopracticeleader
ADM&EI.Theappointmentletterindicatesthatthecomplainantwas
employeecumworkmanintheestablishmentoftherespondents. The
complainanthasnotreceivedtheagreedamountoflegalduescumsalary
totalRs.4,21,773/. Thebreachofthetermsofserviceconditionsand
withholding wages amounts unfair labour practice under Item 9 of
Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. Believing that the
respondentswillpaythesaidlegalduesofsalarytothecomplainantafter
releavingthecomplainanton19.10.2013thecomplainantwaittillJune
2014.
18.

ThecomplainantwasinstructedtowaittillJune2014.The

complaintisfiledintheCourton1.9.2014i.e.within90daysfromthe
datewhenthecomplainantrealizedthattherespondentisnotlikelyto

....11....Comp.(ULP)No.251/2014

dischargethelegalduesincomplianceofthetermsofserviceconditions.
There is no one month notice or even 24 hours notice issued and no
compensation. Therefore, primafacie it seems that the respondents
engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 ofSchedule IV of the
MRTU&PULPAct,1971.Therefore,theIndustrialCourthasjurisdiction
toentertain thecomplaint of unfairlabourpractice. The respondents
failedto establish that the complainant wasworking in administrative
and managerial capacity in the respondent establishment. The
complainant being a B.E. (Electronics) Engineer was working as a
TechnicalAssistantandtherespondentsdidnotpaytheagreedlegaldues
Rs.4,21,773/. Therefore, the complainant invoked the provisions of
Section28r/w.Items9&10ofScheduleIVoftheMRTU&PULPAct,
1971againsttherespondents. Thecomplainantwaitbecausetheword
was given by the Respondent No.3 Ms. Mahalakshmi Chaowdhary,
ManagerHRoftherespondentestablishmenttillApril2014andwas
informedtowaittillJune2014.Therefore,filingofthecomplaintwithin
theperiodof90daysnotbarredbytheperiodoflimitation.
19.

TheadvocateShri.A.G.Nagvekarforthecomplainantplaced

relianceontheobservationoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtinthecaseof
AnandaBazarPatrika(P.)Ltd.V/s.TheWorkmen,reportedin1969
FLR186.Inthesaidcase,itislaiddownwhetherapersonisemployed
inasupervisorycapacityorforclericalwork,dependsuponwhetherthe
mainandprincipaldutiescarriedoutbyhimarethoseofasupervisory
character,orofanaturecarriedoutbyaclerk. Ifapersonismainly
doingsupervisorywork,but,incidentallyorforafractionofthetime,

....12....Comp.(ULP)No.251/2014

also does some clerical work, it would have to be held that he is


employedinsupervisorycapacity;and,conversely,ifthemainworkdone
isofclericalnature,themerefactthatsomesupervisorydutiesarealso
carriedoutincidentallyorasasmallfractionoftheworkdonebyhim
will not convert his employment as a clerk into one in supervisory
capacity.Itisheldthatfewminordutiesofasupervisorynaturecannot
converthisofficeofseniorclerkinchargeintothatofasupervisor.
20.

FurtherrelianceisplacedontheobservationoftheHon'ble

SupremeCourtinthecaseof S.K.MainiV/s.CaronaSahuCompany
Ltd. & Ors., reported in 1994IILLN450. In the said case, it is
observedthattesttodeterminewhetheremployeeisworkmanTobe
determinedwithreferencetoprincipalnatureofdutiesandfunctionsand
not designation Shop Manager Incharge of a local shop of a big
company.Held,isnotaworkman,thoughincidentallyheisrequiredto
dosomeclericalworkorisnotvestedwithpowertoappointordischarge
employeesunderhim. Itisheldthatwhetherornotanemployeeisa
workmanunderS.2(s)oftheIndustrialDisputesActisrequiredtobe
determinedwithreferencetohisprincipalnatureofdutiesandfunctions.
Thedesignationofanemployeeisnotofmuchimportanceandwhatis
importantisthenatureofdutiesbeingperformedbytheemployee.The
determinativefactoristhemaindutiesoftheconcernedemployeeand
notsomeworksincidentally.Conversely,ifthemainworkisofmanual,
clericalorof technicalnature, the mere fact that some supervisory or
other work is also done by the employee incidentally or only a small
fraction of working time is devoted to some supervisory works, the

....13....Comp.(ULP)No.251/2014

employeewillcomewithinthepuriewofworkmanasdefinedinS.2(s)of
theIndustrialDisputesAct,1971.
21.

Therefore, I answer Preliminary Issue No.1 in the

affirmative,No.2inthenegative,No.3inthenegativeandproceedto
passthefollowingorder.
~:ORDER:~
1.

Thecomplaintshallproceedforhearingontestofthe
issuesframedtodayvideExh.O6.

2.

Therespondentsaredirectedtodepositthelegaldues
Rs.4,21,773/intheCourtunderprotest.

3.

Noorderastocosts.

Sd/
Date:12.01.2015
(D.S.SHINDE)
Member,
Place:Mumbai

IndustrialCourt,Mumbai

Sd/
(A.S.JAGDALE)
Registrar,
IndustrialCourt,Mumbai
(DATE://2015)
Agp/13.01.2015
file/home/sm1/Palkar/D.S.Shinde/Judgment/2015/January/Comp.(ULP)25114(PP)

Centres d'intérêt liés