Former IT Analyst Of TCS With Supervisory Responsibilities Not Workman: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a former IT analyst of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (TCS) observing that the petitioner was not a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act.

In the judgment, Justice Milind N. Jadhav of the Bombay High Court upheld the Labour Court's order which held it did not have the jurisdiction to try the case since the petitioner Rohit Dembiwal was not a workman. The petitioner had challenged his alleged wrongful dismissal by the company in 2011.

The court held that the petitioner was involved in managerial, supervisory or administrative functions like approving leave/timesheets of team members, handling their reimbursements, reviewing their appraisals, taking business decisions etc., indicating he is not a mere 'workman'.

“It is clear that predominant nature or substantial work performed by the employee has to be analysed and any designation of employee or any incidental work done by him cannot determine or qualify him as a workman or otherwise.”

The petitioner first challenged the Labour Court's order before the Industrial Court in a Revision Application under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. In 2023, the petitioner approached the High Court.

TCS argued that the Petitioner's main role was that of a supervisory nature and having managerial ability, competence and empowerment, while Dembiwal's lawyer Santosh Gavade had argued that his client was simply an IT analyst doing technical work.

The court noted that Dembiwal was appointed in 2010 by TCS as an IT Analyst and after completing his probation period, he was assigned to a project as a 'Module Leader' where he was guiding a team of 7 members.

Dismissing Dembiwal's contention that he was merely performing technical work, Justice Jadhav observed: "It is seen that admittedly there were 7 team members working under the Petitioner's guidance and control, though this is vehemently opposed by the Petitioner. What is pertinent to note is the factual situation with which the Petitioner was associated and that cannot be wished away."

The court took note of Dembiwal's own deposition where he admitted to being a 'group leader' and interacting with clients in that capacity. Justice Jadhav stated: "This material evidence below Exhibit 'U-13' is something which the Petitioner cannot do away with in the facts of the present case."

"The evidence given by the witness of Respondent No.1 namely Mr. Rohit Bhandari below Exhibit 'C-15' is crucial and goes to root of matter to prove that the work ethic and character of work performed by the Petitioner was indeed supervisory and managerial in nature," the judge observed.

Dismissing Dembiwal's writ petition, Justice Jadhav concluded: "Petitioner was delegated powers to take business decisions with State Bank of India and / or any of its clients. Considering the above, the learned Industrial Court has clearly returned appropriate findings based on overwhelming evidence appreciated correctly while upholding the judgment of the Labour Court."

The court noted the burden is on the employee to establish that he falls under the definition of 'workman' and in the present case the employee's own deposition determined his status.

Case No - WRIT PETITION NO.10523 OF 2023

Case Title - Rohit Dembiwal vs Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. & Ors

Click Here To Read/Download Order