Supervision Of Activities Of Contract Workers Or Transporters Does Not Result In Ceasing Of Supervisory Capacity Of The Employee: Bombay High Court

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No 2579/2017, stated that just because an employee supervises non-direct employees, it does not mean that he is not in a supervisory role.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the nature of the supervisor’s duties takes prominence and not who he supervises. This ruling arose in the case where the petitioner, a senior sales executive challenged a decision of labour court which held that he is not an ‘employee’ as per Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (“MRTU & PULP Act”).

The High Court observed that petitioner was neither a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 nor a ‘sales promotion employee’ within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976. Therefore, the petitioner was not an ‘employee’ within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act and his complaint before the Labour Court was clearly not maintainable.