ITPL Whitefield Tech company failed to issue her notice for absence before terminating her. Labour Court reinstates her as she was a ‘workman’A tech company inhas been directed to reinstate a clerk who allegedly took unauthorised leave following her maternity leave. The company failed to issue her a notice for the absence and therefore the Labour Court held that it had denied her work. The High Court has upheld the labour court order and said that the woman was not doing ‘managerial work’ and was a ‘workman’. However, she will not get back wages.Usha Venkatesh worked in Fiorano Software Technologies in Whitefield. Alleging that she was refused work from February 1, 2012, she approached the Labour Court. The court, in its order on October 27, 2014 directed her reinstatement with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service. But it did not extend the benefit of back wages.Both the company and Usha challenged the Labour Court order in the High Court. While the company challenged her reinstatement, the woman challenged the denial of back wages.The company’s advocate argued that Usha was working in the managerial capacity and along with that there was a small extent of clerical work. Her salary was also more than Rs 24,000 per month and therefore she cannot be considered a ‘workman’ who can approach the labour court. She had also allegedly absented unauthorisedly from work after her maternity leave. After denial of work in January 2012, she remained silent for seven months before approaching the Labour Court, the court was told.The HC said that the nature of duties attached to a worker is an important criteria to decide whether he/she was a ‘workman’ or not. It noted that Usha had the job of attending to visitors, checking on incoming and outgoing couriers, attending telephone calls and mails and sometime was required to serve beverages to visitors. Though she was supervising three office assistants and three drivers, she was not an independent decision-making authority. She delivered cheques but did not have the power to write them. She was a ‘workman’ under the law the court held as she was doing unskilled work like attending calls and “she had no administrative work but her work was purely a clerical and unskilled”.The HC also noted that the company did not take steps in any manner to enquire about her absence.“It is further elicited that the petitioner did not issue any notice to the respondent to join duty after completion of maternity leave and they did not hold any enquiry so far as her absence is concerned. This only leads to a conclusion that there is refusal of work to the respondent. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to reinstatement but not for back wages” because the woman did not join work after her maternity leave. Upholding the order of the labour court, the HC dismissed the petitions of both the woman and the company.

Stay updated with all the Bangalore Latest News headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.