‘Mere Approval Does Not Confer Government Status’: Bombay High Court Declares State Government as Appropriate Authority for ARAI, Upholds Rejection of Workman Status Claim
Safiya Malik
The Bombay High Court has adjudicated on the jurisdictional authority over the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) and the employment status of a former Senior Project Engineer, addressing two crucial issues: whether the appropriate government for ARAI is the Central or State Government and whether the petitioner qualifies as a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne, presiding over the matter, ruled that the appropriate government for ARAI is the State Government, setting aside the Labour Court’s contrary finding. However, the Court upheld the Labour Court’s conclusion that the petitioner did not meet the statutory definition of a workman, thereby rejecting his challenge to his termination. The Court observed, “Considering the cumulative effect of the evidence, it becomes difficult to hold that the predominant duties and responsibilities performed by the petitioner were manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, or clerical in nature.”
The petition arose from the rejection of a reference made by the First Labour Court, Pune, regarding the termination of the petitioner, Pandurang Punja Avhad, from ARAI, an organization engaged in research and certification activities in the automotive sector. The dispute stemmed from the petitioner’s dismissal on August 8, 2005, following allegations of engaging in private business activities and receiving illegal gratification. The Labour Court dismissed the reference on May 15, 2024, ruling that the Central Government was the appropriate authority and that the petitioner was not a workman. The High Court, while reversing the finding on jurisdiction, upheld the rejection of the reference.
The petitioner had been employed with ARAI since June 17, 1980, initially as a Technical Assistant, before being promoted to Senior Project Engineer. On July 30, 2005, ARAI issued a show-cause notice alleging that he was engaged in private business with his son and had accepted illegal gratification from various three-wheeler manufacturers in exchange for facilitating their certification. He denied the allegations in his response dated August 2, 2005, but his services were terminated with immediate effect on August 8, 2005.
Following his dismissal, the petitioner initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai, challenging the termination order. ARAI contended that it was neither a department of the Central Government nor owned by it. The CAT accepted this argument and dismissed the application on November 27, 2006, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
Subsequently, the petitioner pursued remedies under labour law, leading to a reference being made to the First Labour Court, Pune, regarding his termination and seeking reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages. ARAI contested the maintainability of the reference, arguing that the appropriate government for ARAI was the Central Government and that the petitioner was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Labour Court, in its award dated May 15, 2024, held that the appropriate government was the Central Government and also determined that the petitioner did not qualify as a workman. Consequently, the reference was rejected. The petitioner challenged this decision before the Bombay High Court.
The Court first addressed the question of jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that ARAI had taken inconsistent positions, asserting before the CAT that it was not an instrumentality of the Central Government but contending before the Labour Court that it functioned under the authority of the Central Government.
The Court noted that ARAI was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and was established by Indian vehicle and automotive auxiliary manufacturers. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar v. Automotive Research Association of India, the Court observed that ARAI performs multiple functions beyond vehicle certification, and these are not conducted under the authority of the Central Government. The Court stated:
"Once it is held that several other functions of Respondent-ARAI are not conducted under the authority of the Central Government, it cannot be contended that the ‘appropriate government’ for Respondent-ARAI would be the Central Government."
Furthermore, the Court criticized ARAI for taking shifting positions to suit its convenience:
"Respondent-ARAI defended the challenge to its actions by asserting before the CAT that it was not an instrumentality of the State. However, before the Labour Court, it contended that it carried on industry under the authority of the Central Government. This shifting stance cannot be appreciated."
Accordingly, the Court set aside the Labour Court's finding on jurisdiction and held that the State Government was the appropriate authority.
Turning to the issue of whether the petitioner was a workman, the Court examined his job responsibilities. While the petitioner contended that his duties involved skilled and technical work, ARAI produced evidence showing that he exercised supervisory control.
The Court observed that the petitioner recommended leave applications, sanctioned travel programs for employees, and was deputed abroad for training. The judgment stated:
"Petitioner was found to be (i) recommending leaves, (ii) sanctioning tour programs of other employees, (iii) deputed for training in a foreign country, (iv) appeared for an interview for the position of Assistant Director, (v) received three promotions, and (vi) held the position of Senior Project Engineer. It becomes difficult to hold that the predominant duties and responsibilities performed by him were manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, or clerical in nature."
The Court also noted that the petitioner had been considered for promotion to Assistant Director and was earning a salary of ₹30,000 at the time of his termination. The judgment stated:
"It surely cannot be contended that such a senior-level official would be offered to an ordinary workman performing predominantly manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, or clerical work."
Accordingly, the Court upheld the Labour Court’s finding that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Based on these findings, the Court issued the following directives:
The Labour Court’s finding that the appropriate government for ARAI is the Central Government was set aside, with the Court holding that the appropriate government is the State Government. The Labour Court’s conclusion that the petitioner was not a workman was upheld. The rejection of the reference was affirmed, as the petitioner was found to be employed in a managerial or supervisory capacity. The Court directed that the amount deposited by ARAI with the Court be released to the petitioner, along with accrued interest.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nitin A. Kulkarni
For the Respondent (ARAI): Mr. Avinash Jalisatgi with Mr. Varun Joshi, Mr. Chetan Alai, and Ms. Divya Wadekar
Case Title: Pandurang Punja Avhad v. Director, Automotive Research Association of India
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:11251
Case Number: WP No. 12676 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
[Read/Download order]
