Tribunal Failed To Consider Roles & Responsibilities: Bombay High Court Holds Abbott's Business Manager Not 'Workman' Under Industrial Disputes Act

The Bombay High Court recently held that a "Therapy Business Manager" whose job involves executing business development, marketing strategies, and customer management, is not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Justice Avinash Gharote of the Nagpur bench was dealing with a writ petition challenging labour court’s finding that one Dipak Deshmukh, employed as Therapy Business Manager at pharmaceutical company Abbott India Ltd. was a workman.

“The nature of duties which the respondent is required to perform in terms of the order of appointment and those specifically enumerated in Annexure-II above clearly indicate that the employment of the respondent is neither to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work”, the court observed.

The labour court passed the order on the preliminary issue of whether Deshmukh was a “workman” or not. The labour court held that a Therapy Business manager would be considered a workman as he was not assigned with any supervisory or managerial work. The industrial court upheld this order and dismissed a revision application against it. Therefore, Abbott India filed the present writ petition against the order.

The court referred to previous judgments, including Standard Chartered Bank v. Vandana Joshi, emphasizing the necessity of assessing the dominant nature of the duties and responsibilities of an employee to determine whether they fall within the ambit of a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Examining the job description of Therapy Business Manager, the court concluded that the its responsibilities did not fulfil requirements under section 2(s) of the ID Act.

The Industrial Court had held that since Abbott India failed to show that Deshmukh had power to recommend and assign work to the subordinate staff or purchase material or machinery or to supervise work of any employees, he was a workman.

The court opined that the Industrial Court did not consider the judgment in Standard Chartered Bank. In that case, the court held that an employee being subject to checks and balances would not establish that she/he is a workman, as modern corporate organizations implement checks and balances, and employees, even in managerial positions, are subject to verification and approval, making absolute autonomy rare.

Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Labour court and the Industrial court.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 2101 of 2023

Case Title – Abbott India Limited v. Dipak s/o Arunrao Deshmukh

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment