Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(s) – Meaning of “workman” – Determinative factor is the principal duties and functions performed by an employee in the establishment and not merely the designation of his post – Onus of proving the nature of employment rests on the person claiming to be a “workman”:
Held: To qualify as a “workman” under s.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a person must be engaged in any work of manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory nature – However, the said provision excludes four classes of employees from its ambit including a person employed in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs.10,000/- after amendment (Rs.1,600/- before amendment of 2010) per month or exercises functions mainly of a managerial nature. [Para 11] The onus of proving the nature of employment rests on the person claiming to be a “workman” within the definition of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act – The employee was appointed as Junior Engineer (E&C) in 1997 under Group 3 (Admn) for a salary of Rs. 4,761.75 per month – Thereafter, the employee was promoted as Assistant Engineer (E&C) in Group 2A (Admn) with a revised salary of Rs. 6,008.79 per month – The employee deposed that he was not an executive cadre employee and there were senior officers to supervise and control his work – Admittedly, the employee was supervising the work of two juniors who were working under him – In the absence of any concrete material to demonstrate the nature of duties discharged by the employee, the employment orders issued by the management will have to be taken into consideration and as per the same, the employee was appointed as Junior Engineer and was promoted as Assistant Engineer, on the administrative side – Even according to the employee, the nature of duties and functions discharged by him was of supervisory – As such, applying the pre-amended version of Section 2(s) and since the employee was drawing salary of more than Rs. 1,600, the employee is not a “workman” under Section 2(s) and is not covered by provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [Para 12 to 16] Termination of employment – No violation of procedure by the management:
Held: In terms of clause 14 of the appointment letter, the employee was required to be paid one month salary in lieu of notice – The employee was relieved from duty with effect from 08.10.2003 and he was issued with a cheque towards one month salary in lieu of notice – Admittedly, the employee accepted the said cheque and encashed the same – Hence, there is no violation of procedure on the part of the management in terminating the services of the employee. [Para 17]
Since the employee is not covered by provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the order of High Court setting aside the award of the Labour Court to reinstate the employee in service and pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu of back wages is affirmed. [Para 18]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Raghav Bhatia, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.). Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.