As per the case facts, the appellant, M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, appealed a High Court judgment that affirmed a lower court's decision, which had partly allowed the respondent's writ petition. ... The respondent, appointed as a Regional Business Head, had resigned, leading to a dispute over whether his resignation was forced and if he qualified as a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (ID Act). The appeal to the Supreme Court aimed to determine if the respondent was indeed a "workman" and if the Labour Court had proper jurisdiction to hear the case. The question arose whether the respondent, considering the nature of his duties as a Regional Business Head, fell within the definition of a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, thereby making his claim before the Labour Court against the appellant permissible. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgments and restoring the Labour Court's decision. The Court declared that the respondent was not a "workman" under the ID Act, concluding that his reference to the Labour Court against the appellant was therefore not maintainable. The Court found his resignation to be a personal choice rather than a result of arbitrary employer actions.