8/12/2019 A Workman Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

1/4

A WORKMAN UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT,1947

Principal Nature of Duties and Functions

Whether or not an employee is a workman under Section 2(s) of the IndustrialDisputes Act is required to be determined with reference to his principal nature of

duties and functions. Such question is determined with reference to the facts and

circumstances of the case and materials on record and it is not possible to lay down

any strait-jacket formula which can decide the dispute as to the real nature of

duties and functions being performed by an employee in all cases (S. K. Maini v.

M/s. Carona Sahu Company Ltd. & Ors.,reported in 1994 2 CLR 359).

The Industrial Disputes Act under Section 2(s) defines a Workman as-

Any person (including an apprenti ce) employed in any industry to do any

manual , unski ll ed, techni cal, operational, cleri cal or supervisory work for hi re

or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or impli ed, and for the

purpose of any proceeding under this Act in r elation to an industrial dispute,

includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in

connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such

person-

(i ) Who is subject to the Ai r Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950

(46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(i i ) Who is employed in the police service or as an of f icer or other employee of a

prison; or

(i ii ) Who is employed mainl y in a manager ial or admin istrative capacity; or

(i v) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one

thousand sic hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by nature of duties

8/12/2019 A Workman Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

2/4

attached to the off ice or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainl y

of a managerial nature.

The complexity in commercial organizations

When an employee is employed to do the types of work enumerated in the

definition of workman under Section 2(s), there is hardly any difficulty in treating

him as a workman under the appropriate classification. But in the complexity of

industrial or commercial organizations quite a large number of employees are often

required to do more than one kind of work. In such cases, it becomes necessary to

determine under which classification the employee will fall for the purpose of

deciding whether he comes within the definition of workman or goes out of it.

The meaning of Workman Held: A person to be a workman under the IDA must be

employed to do the work of any of the categories as mentioned under the Section

2(s). The same must be established even if a does not perform managerial or

supervisory duties. It must be established that he performs skilled or unskilled,

manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward. It is not enough

that he is not covered by any of the four exceptions to the definitions (Mukesh K.

Tripathi v. LIC, (2004) 8 SCC 387).

Supervisory and Managerial Duties

Where the employee possess the power of assigning duties and distribution of

work such authority of employee may be indicative of his being supervisor doing

supervision. In a broad sense Supervisor is one who has authority over others:

someone who superintends and directs others. An employee who in the interest of

the employer has responsibility to directly control the work done by the other

workers and if the work is not done correctly to guide them to do it correctly in

accordance with norms shall certainly be a Supervisor. A supervisory work may be

contra-distinguished from managerial and administrative work and, so also a

supervisor from manager and administrator. Supervisors predominant function is

to see that work is done by workers under him in accordance with the norms laid

8/12/2019 A Workman Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

3/4

down by the management: he has no power to take any disciplinary action (G. M.

Pillai v. A.P. Lakhmikaf Judge, III Labour Court, 1998 LLR 310).

Test to determine Workman-

Following points are not at all relevant in deciding whether or not a person is a

workmen within the meaning of the Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act

(Devinder Singh v Municipal Council, (2011) 6 SCC 584).

1. Source of Employment2. Method of Recruitment3. Terms and Condition of Employment/Contract of Service4. Quantum of Wages/Pay5. Mode of Payment

Once the test of employment for hires or reward for doing the specified type of

work is satisfied, employee would fall within definition of workman.

Full Time or Part Time

What is also important to note is that the definition of workmen doesnt make any

distinction between fulltime or part time employee or a person employed on

contract basis. Labour/Industrial Court must determine whether a person is

employed in an industry for hire or reward for doing

manual/skilled/unskilled/operational/technical/or clerical work in an industry (New

India Assurance Co Ltd. v A Sankaralingam, (2008) 10 SCC 698).

In Case the person regarding whom the dispute is raised is not a Workman?

Where the Workmen raise a dispute as against their employer, the person regarding

whose employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labor

the dispute is raised, need not be, strictly speaking, a workman within the

meaning of the Act, but must be one in whose employment, non-employment,

8/12/2019 A Workman Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

4/4

terms of employment or conditions of labor the workmen as a class have a direct or

substantial interest.

The expression any person in section 2(k) of the ID Act must be read subject to

limitations and qualifications.

The Section 2(k) of the ID Act states that:

Means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between

employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected

with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the

conditions of labor, of any persons;

The two crucial limitations are (1) the dispute must be a real dispute between the

parties to the dispute so as to be capable of settlement or adjudication by one party

to the dispute giving necessary relief to the other; and (2) the person regarding

whom the dispute is raised must be one in whose employment, non-employment

terms of employment, or conditions of labor, the parties to the dispute have a direct

or substantial interest (Workmen of Dimakatch Tea Estate v. Management of

D.T.E., AIR 1958 SC 353).