Senior Sales Manager Held Workman – Termination Illegal | HC

Case Details: New World Paints (P.) Ltd. vs. Suhas Dattatray Narkar [2026] 185 taxmann.com 342 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Amit Borkar, J.
• Dinesh C. Patankar for the Petitioner.
• Avinash D. Kango & Neha T. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the respondent was appointed as Sales Manager in August 2016, and from 1 July 2017 his designation was changed to Senior Sales Manager (Project). He received a relieving letter dated 27 May 2020, issued without prior notice during the pandemic.

After termination, he issued a demand letter seeking reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. On non-redressal, he approached the Conciliation Officer; conciliation failed, and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court.

Before the Labour Court, though the petitioner appeared, no written statement was filed. Accordingly, the Labour Court proceeded on the respondent’s unchallenged material and held that the respondent was a workman and that his termination was illegal.

The petitioner-employer filed the instant writ petition contending that the respondent was not a workman, as he was drawing a salary of about Rs. 0.50 lakhs per month and was designated as Senior Sales Manager. However, designation and salary alone are not decisive; what is important is the nature of duties actually performed.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that the respondent had clearly stated on oath that his duties were mainly clerical and that he used to visit societies, meet office bearers, and collect product approvals. These duties did not indicate managerial or supervisory control and, therefore, the conclusion that the respondent was a workman was justified.

Since the petitioner had not shown compliance with statutory provisions such as notice or compensation, the order of reinstatement was a logical consequence.

The High Court further held that, since the findings of the Labour Court were based on evidence and there was no perversity, writ jurisdiction did not permit reappreciation of facts unless there was clear illegality. Therefore, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court was to be upheld.