Introduction:

The Karnataka High Court, in a recent judgment, clarified that an employee serving as a project lead in an Information Technology Services and Consulting company does not fall under the classifications of a ‘workman’ as defined by Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court’s ruling came in response to a plea filed by Mphasis Ltd, challenging the Labour Court’s order directing the reinstatement of an employee, Ashok S Narayanpur, and granting him continuity of service and future benefits.

Arguments:

Mphasis Ltd contended that Narayanpur, working as a Project Lead, did not meet the criteria of a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The company emphasized his managerial role, involving decision-making and team leadership, which fell outside the manual, clerical, or technical work envisioned in the Act. On the other hand, Narayanpur sought re-employment through the Labour Court, arguing that his resignation was submitted for personal reasons, and the company’s refusal was unjustifiable.

Court’s Judgement:

The Karnataka High Court, through Justice K S Hemalekha, examined the principal nature of Narayanpur’s duties as a Project Lead. It noted that the role involved managerial tasks, decision-making, and sharing domain knowledge, placing it outside the purview of a ‘workman.’ The court set aside the Labour Court’s order, highlighting that the decision to reinstate Narayanpur exceeded the Labour Court’s jurisdiction due to his non-classification as a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the ID Act.