Manager Not "Employee" Under Rajasthan Shops Act: Raj HC

Manager With Control Over Vendors Not an "Employee" Under Rajasthan Shops Act: High Court Quashes Reinstatement Order

Published: 22 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court held that a Manager (Operations) whose duties were managerial, including control over vendor selection and the business affairs of his area, was not an 'employee' under Section 2(5) of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (para 16). The authority under Section 28A therefore had no jurisdiction to set aside his dismissal and order reinstatement; its order was quashed, leaving him free to pursue other remedies (paras 17-18).

Key holdings

Designation matters less than the principal nature of the duties actually performed (paras 14-15).

Management responsibility for a team, including disciplinary action and vendor management, marked the role as managerial (paras 13, 16).

An authority acting on a complaint by a person outside the statutory definition acts without jurisdiction, open to correction under Article 226 (para 17).

The respondent remains at liberty to pursue any alternative remedy available in law (para 18).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

FedEx appointed the respondent as Manager (Operations) in October 2013 with an annual compensation of Rs 7,50,001 (paras 7, 13). After an internal investigation and a disciplinary hearing on charges of a conflict of interest and lapses in vendor selection, he was dismissed on 26.09.2017 (paras 7-8). On his complaint under Section 28A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, the prescribed authority set aside the dismissal on 01.01.2020 and directed reinstatement with all benefits (para 9). FedEx challenged that order, arguing that he managed 77 employees and fell outside the Act (paras 1-2).

Court's Findings

Section 28A lets an employee in continuous employment for six months challenge a dismissal without reasonable cause or notice before the prescribed authority, which may order reinstatement or compensation (paras 10-11). Section 2(5) defines 'employee', while Section 2(6) defines 'employer' to include a manager or other person acting in the general management or control of an establishment (para 12). Whether the respondent was an employee depended on his job profile and description (para 13). Following Arkal Govind Raj Rao and S.K. Maini, status turns on the primary, dominant nature of the duties, not the designation or incidental work (paras 14-15). His job description gave him management responsibility for a team, including disciplinary action, and vendor management, and the record showed he controlled vendor selection and managed business affairs in his area (paras 13, 16). He was therefore not an employee under Section 2(5) and could not invoke the authority; its order was without jurisdiction, which the High Court can correct under Article 226 (paras 16-17).

Legal Principle

Whether a person is an 'employee' entitled to complain under Section 28A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act depends on the dominant nature of his duties. A manager whose principal functions are managerial falls outside the definition, and an order passed on his complaint is without jurisdiction (paras 14-17).

Precedents Relied Upon

S.K. Maini v. M/s Carona Sahu Company Limited and Ors. (1994) 3 SCC 510
Applied Discussed at ¶ 3, 15, 16
Whether an employee is a workman depends on the principal nature of his duties, not designation or incidental work; a shop manager with managerial functions is not a workman.
Arkal Govind Raj Rao v. Ciba Geigy of India Limited 1986 (52) FLR 19 (SC)
Applied Discussed at ¶ 5, 14, 16
The test is the primary, basic or dominant nature of the duties for which the person was employed.
Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited and Another v. Their Workmen AIR 1958 SC 130
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 5
Cited by the respondent on workman status and the domestic inquiry; not discussed in the order.

View all precedents (7)

Pramod Kumar Singh Sishodia v. State of U.P. and Others 2017 (155) FLR 75 (SC)
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 5
Cited by the respondent on workman status and the domestic inquiry; not discussed in the order.
Roop Singh Negi v. PNB (2009) 2 SCC 570
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 5
Cited by the respondent on workman status and the domestic inquiry; not discussed in the order.
Hukam Chand v. Union of India and Ors. 1990 (1) RLR 647 (Raj.) (DB)
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 5
Cited by the respondent on workman status and the domestic inquiry; not discussed in the order.
I.T.D.C. Limited v. The Authority under Raj. the Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 and Another RLR 1987 (2) 387 (Raj.) (DB)
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 5
Cited by the respondent on workman status and the domestic inquiry; not discussed in the order.

Statutory Provisions