Front Office ‘Manager’ Without Powers Is a Workman | SC

Case Details: Srinibas Goradia vs. Arvind Kumar Sahu - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 667 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Prashant Kumar Mishra & N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
• Awanish Sinha, AOR for the Petitioner.
• Kedar Nath Tripathy, Dhananjaya Mishra, AORs, Aditya Narayan Tripathy & P. K. Chand, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant was appointed as the cashier in the hotel of the respondent-employer. The employer nomenclatured the appellant as a manager in the front office. The Respondent terminated the services of the appellant. The Labour Court held that the appellant was a workman and his termination was in breach of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The High Court set aside the order of the Labour Court on the ground that the appellant was engaged in supervisory or managerial work and, thus, could not be treated as a ‘workman’. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

It was noted that the appellant was not found to be discharging any supervisory or authoritative work, but was performing the work of a receptionist and used to handle hotel boys. Further, the appellant denied that he was a manager or had any supervisory powers. He stated that no employees were under his supervision and that he was unable to exercise his authority over staff.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that merely because management named the post of appellant as manager in the front office, it would not ipso facto take him out of the purview of workman for, he was not entrusted with any independent supervisory authority or work, except incidental to manual work.

The Supreme Court held that the bald assertion on behalf of the respondent employer that the appellant was a manager and possessed supervisory powers remained unsupported by any cogent material and therefore lacked substantiation. Hence, the appellant fell within the definition of ‘workman’, and his termination was to be set aside.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in WP(C)-24351-2022, dated 30-01-2024 (para 10) set aside.

List of Cases Referred to

• ARVIND KUMAR SAHU v. GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA, LABOUR and E.S.I. DEPARTMENT [2024] 1 taxmann.com 9363 (Orissa) (para 2.1)
• Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477 (para 3.4)
• National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Shri Krishan Bhageria AIR 1988 SC 329 (para 3.4)
• Lloyds Bank Limited, New Delhi v. Panna Lal Gupta and Others AIR 1967 SC 428 (para 5.2)
• All India Reserve Bank Employees’ Association v. Reserve Bank of India AIR 1966 SC 305 (para 5.3.1)
• A. R. Nataraja Ayyar v. Trichy-Srirangam Transport Company, Ltd. 1955 I LLJ 608 (para 5.3)
• United Commercial Bank, Ltd. v. L.S. Seth 1954 II LLJ 457 (para 5.4)
• Mcloed & Co. v. Sixth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal AIR 1958 Cal 273 (para 5.4)
• Hind Construction & Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen AIR 1965 SC 917 (para 5.6.1)
• Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. R.S. Bhatia AIR 1975 SC 1898 (para 5.6.1)
• D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration AIR 1984 SC 153 (para 5.6.2)
• D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration (1983) 4 SCC 293 (para 5.6.2)
• Anand Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. v. The Workmen (1970) 3 SCC 248 (para 5.7.1)
• Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. (1984) 2 SCC 569 (para 5.7.4)
• City of Nagpur v. Employees AIR 1960 SC 675 (para 5.7.5)
• Dairymen’s Foremen and Re Tailor’s Cutters, Inre (1911-12) 28 Times Law Reports 587 (para 5.7.6)
• Reid v. British and Irish Steam Packet Company Limited (1921) 2 KBD 319 (para 5.7.7)
• Jaques v. Owner of Steam Tug Alexandra (1921) 2 AC 339 (para 5.7.7)
• J & F Stone Lighting and Radio Ltd. v. Haygarth (1968) AC Pt. 3 (para 5.7.7).