NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

TRIMESTER-XII

PROJECT OF

INDUSTRIAL LAW

ON

CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF ‘WORKMAN’ UNDER THE

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

PROF. MR. MAHENDRA SONI

ROLL NO: 2015BALLB Professor, NLIU Bhopal

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...............................................................................................................3

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM........................................................................................................4

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.........................................................................................................4

HYPOTHESIS.................................................................................................................................4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................4

REVIEW OF LITERATURE..........................................................................................................4

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................7

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................7

DEFINITION OF WORKMAN......................................................................................................9

CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF ‘WORKMAN’ UNDER THE ID ACT...................................11

I. Supervisory and Managerial work......................................................................................11

II. Skilled and Unskilled manual and operational work..........................................................12

III. Part-Time and Full-Time workman.................................................................................12

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................14

BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................................15

Page | 2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I extend my sincere thanks to everybody who helped with the completion of this project. I am
greatly obliged to our teacher for Industrial Law, Prof. Mr. Mahendra Soni who allowed us to
select the fine and interesting topic for the present project and also helped with the research and
compilation of necessary information for the completion of the project.

And, I would like to thank my parents and friends for their support.

Thanking You,
Name
Roll number

Page | 3
 CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF ‘WORKMAN’ UNDER THE
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

How the Indian judiciary has time and again interpreted the definition of ‘workman’ as provided
under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputed Act, 1947?

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

1. To study the definition of ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputed Act, 1947;
2. To study how the dimensions of ‘workman’ under the ID Act have changed by the court.

HYPOTHESIS

It is hypothesized that the ID Act is a beneficial legislation and the court has analyzed the
definition and scope of ‘workman’ for the best interests of workers.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The doctrinal method of research is adopted for this project work. The project deals with the
study of changing dimensions of ‘workman’ under the ID Act, 1947. The study is done and the
conclusion is drawn through the existing laws, case laws, books, reports, and facts.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1. Deepanjan Dey, Are IT professionals Workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act?,
Business Manager

It cannot be denied that the job of an engineer in a software company involves skills and
technical knowledge. Therefore it can be concluded that the job of a software engineer can be
termed as the skilled or technical one. Any person doing a skilled job is a workman under the
definition of that term.

Page | 4
 However, it is wrong to straight jacket all IT professionals as workmen under section 2 (s) of
the Act because they are performing either technical nature of the job or not falling within the
four exceptions to the definition of the Act. Their status as workmen will be determined by
their Job description, responsibilities, creativeness required to perform the job, and the kind
of training they had to undergo for performing the job. However, nothing can be said with
certainty until a case is put to judicial scrutiny as each case will be determined by its own
merits.

2. Atul Gupta, Employee Performing Imaginative and Creative Work not a Workman Under
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Trilegal

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Divyash Pandit v. The National Council for Cement
and Building Materials, 2012 LLR 463 decided on the question of whether an engineering
graduate working as a scientist was a workman under the ID Act. The court held that
research work would not be skilled, unskilled, manual, or technical work and such an
employee would not be a workman under the Act. The decision of the courts is based on the
fact that research work, being very specialized and involving imagination and creativity
would not be skilled, manual, technical or unskilled work. A similar view has been taken in
the case of Tata Sons Ltd. v. S. Bandyopadhyay, 111 (2004) DLT 489 where an employee
providing consultancy services for risk management and development of business for
marketing purposes was not a skilled worker. The Court in this case held that the nature of
work clearly involved a considerable amount of mental inputs related to creativity and
imagination and that such work would not fall within the meaning of the terms manual,
skilled, unskilled or technical.
As a result of these judgments there is now more ambiguity than ever in the already abstruse
definition of workman. The courts appear to be creating a distinction between skilled and
highly skilled employees without actually setting out clear parameters on how and when to
classify them as such. While these judgments would have persuasive value in the case of
engineering graduates hired by IT/ITES companies, it would be crucial for companies to
demonstrate that the work performed by such employees are imaginative, creative and highly

Page | 5
specialized. In the case of employees performing routine software development and data
management work, it may be difficult to demonstrate that such work falls outside the
definition.

3. Shreya Prabhudesai, Law Relating to Settlement of Industrial Disputes, Shodhganga

In any event, Indian courts have ruled that where an employee has multifarious duties and a
question is raised whether he is a workman or not, the court should consider the primary and
basic duties of the person concerned. The determinative factor is the main duties of the
concerned employee and not some work done incidentally. For instance, where an employee
is mainly engaged in supervisory work and if he is asked incidentally to do some clerical
work, these additional duties cannot change the character and status of the person and he will
be considered as a workman doing supervisory work.
Moreover, if the workman is mainly engaged in work which is of manual, clerical or
technical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory or other work is also done by him
incidentally or as a small fraction of his work, will not take him out of the purview of the
definition of a workman. In other words, the dominant purpose of employment must be first
taken into consideration and the gloss of some additional duties must be rejected while
determining the status and character of a person.

Page | 6
 ABSTRACT

This project is divided into four parts. In the first part of the project, it starts
with analysing uncertainties in the life of a workman. The second part deals
with the definition of workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The
third part of the project discusses changing dimensions of workman due to
the different interpretations of Section 2 (s) adopted by the courts. Lastly, the
project concludes with suggestions.

INTRODUCTION

The definition of a worker is fundamental to the concept of an industrial dispute, as an industrial 
dispute can be raised by a "workman" or an "employer." The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred as ‘the ID Act’) is a beneficial piece of legislation, the courts have time and
againbroadened the reach and applicability of this Act by providing a broad interpretation of the 
word "workman".

Labor markets aren't homogeneous. It is generally divided into unorganized and organized, wage
earners and self-employed, skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled, etc. For each section each legislation
relating to social security and working conditions has different interpretations and consequences.
A worker's life is often not homogenous at various periods of life, in his life. At various stages of
life, such as puberty, youth, and old age, the experience, comprehension, and need of things alter
and differ. Social security doesn't have the same meaning throughout a worker's life. Similarly,
the understanding of dignity undergoes a transition over a worker's life-cycle. At different age
levels honesty has a different meaning to him. It's something else at a young age than what it
might be during old age. It means that social security and dignity are not only important to a
worker but also have a warring connotation during a worker's life at multiple stages of life. It is
very necessary that it serve its function for any legislation which can become a source of job or
promotion. From this point of view, in terms of social security and worker dignity, there is every

Page | 7
need to analyze various laws / rules / acts. To add to these uncertainties, courts have also given
different interpretations of 'workman' under the ID Act, 1947.

Page | 8
 DEFINITION OF WORKMAN

Section 2 (s) of the ID Act defines workman as follows:

"workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any
manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,
whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding
under this Act in relation 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 Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950),
or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957 ); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six
hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office
or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.”

Page | 9
Various Courts have interpreted the definition of ‘workman’ under the ID Act and established
numerous deciding factors to determine whether or not an individual is a "workman." The points
to be considered are:

a) Whether a Master-Servant relationship exists between the parties;1

b) When an individual performs different roles that overlap in their characteristics, the
nature of the primary role for which the claimant is employed should be considered;2
c) If the work performed by an individual is either manual, skilled, unskilled, technical
operational, clerical or supervisory in nature, then the mere fact that it does not fall within
the exception would not render a person to be workman. From this judgment it can be
deduced that the court refused to apply literal interpretation to the definition of
‘workman’.3
d) In addition to these points, classification, source of employment, recruitment process,
terms and conditions of employment, payment package and payment system should not
be considered when deciding whether an individual can be called a "workman" or not.4

1
“Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR (1958) SC 358.”
2
“John Joseph Khokar v. Bhadange B. S. & ors 1998 (1) LLJ 447 (Bom).”
3
“Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Respondent: The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi and Anr. [1977(34)FLR206]”
4
“Devinder Singh v Municipal Council, (2011) 6 SCC 584.”

Page | 10
CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF ‘WORKMAN’ UNDER THE ID ACT

Time and again, in the definition under the ID Act, the courts have interpreted particular points
of contention that have broadened the scope of the ID Act. This project addresses some of the
key elements of section 2(s) and their interpretation by various courts.

I. Supervisory and Managerial work

(i) An individual who works in a strictly managerial and/or supervisory capacity is not
classified as a worker under the ID Act (Section 2 (s) (iii) and (iv)). However, when an
individual performs several roles, the nature of the person's principal role must be
weighed in deciding if the person is a "workman." A person's title is not a definitive
criterion for assessing the nature of the work. Even if an individual is appointed
supervisor, the employer must show that his role and his duties were actually supervisors
in nature.5

(ii) As per the exception (iv) provided under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act, an individual must
“(a) be employed in a supervisory capacity; (b) draw more than Rs. 6500 per month as
salaries; and (c) perform primarily managerial functions.” The focus is really on
eliminating certain people who do predominantly administrative work and are working in
a supervisory capacity, i.e. assessing their subordinates' work. A managerial function
requires powers and responsibilities related to hiring and dismissal of new employees, the
granting of employee leave, and real involvement in the company strategy. It is important
to note that the management roles may not be performed as per a written contract but may
be inferred by the powers bestowed upon an individual or the scope of his duties. A mere
team leader who makes checks and passes them on to seniors for consideration can not be
said to be protected by the exception. 6 Additionally, a supervisor who receives less than
5
“Delta Jute & Industries Ltd. Staff Association and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors [2015(145)FLR105].”
6
“Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. and Anr. v. Burmah Shell Management Staff
Association and Ors. A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 922.”

Page | 11
 Rs. 6,500 per month can also raise an industrial dispute over an increase in pay however
that would ultimately exempt him from the concept of a workman.7

II. Skilled and Unskilled manual and operational work

(i) The judiciary of India has not devised a definition as to who is deemed to be individuals
working in "manual and operational work." However, from a layman's understanding,
manual or operational work can be defined as one that does not require a specific skill
set. It also relates to physical labor. The courts have, by way of example, removed certain
works that require imaginative or artistic quotient. A work requiring training will mean
that the job is special and involves a particular application of mind. It is not deemed a
manual/clerical/operational work. In a few cases, however, the courts have veered away
from adopting strict interpretation and ignored ancillary creative works when defining the
concept of "worker." An individual proposing ways to maximize sales uses an inventive
mind and therefore is out of the scope of this term. However, under the ID Act, an
individual who carries out such ideas by handing out leaflets or engaging in the door-to-
door advertisement would be protected as a "workman."

(ii) A salesman may use different strategies to persuade customers, but this is not considered
to be the use of an imaginative or creative quotient, and that salesman would not be
excluded from the definition of workman as provided under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act
even if he goes through training to learn about the product.8

III. Part-Time and Full-Time workman

7
“The Workmen v. Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. & Ors 1972 SCR 1373.”
8
“Chandrasekhara Sharma v. C. Krishnaiah Chetty Jewellers Private Limited 2012(4)KarLJ279”

Page | 12
(i) Working hours are not considered when assessing whether or not an individual qualifies
as a "workman." A master-servant relationship must therefore exist between the employer
and his employee. An independent contractor and workman are two very different
concepts. The main difference lies in the fact that the employer must be able to monitor
the way employee operates. However, the independent contractor cannot be directed or
controlled to perform a work in a particular manner.

(ii) The ID Act does not distinguish between a part-time, full-time, casual, daily wage,
regular or permanent worker. All such persons shall be subject to the ID Act if they fall
under the definition of workman as stated under Section 2(s).

Page | 13
 CONCLUSION

ID act is a beneficial legislation and it has not been interpreted strictly by the courts. The
emphasis is not on the title but powers and duties conferred to the workman. Courts and scholars
have been debating on the issue of 'who is a workman' for decades. Adding and excluding some
categories of workers from the definition as provided under Section 2(s) have the ability to
making the distinction between workman and employer easier. It also has the benefit of
minimizing the rampant avoidance of employers' obligations which have been allowed so far by
the Courts. The words 'employee' and 'workman' for all advantages to materialize must be
viewed positively in order to achieve the objectives underlying the labour laws and regulations.
These goals will be achieved if the courts and tribunals interpret beneficial legislation (I.e. ID
Act, 1947) keeping in mind the best interests of the weaker section of society – workmen.
Dependence itself should therefore be used to classify the 'workman' and cause the application of
protective labour rules.

Page | 14
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS/ARTICLES

1. Dr. Balwinder Singh Worker’s Life, Work and Decency: Needed Regulatory Measures in
India (2009).
2. Dr. V.G. Goswami, Labour & Industrial Laws (2010).
3. Reports of National Commission on Labour (2002, 1991-1967) Academic Foundation,
New Delhi.
4. Aditya Swaroop: Grievance settlement authorities; emerging trends, LLJ, II, 2008.
5. Agarwal S.L: labour Management Relations, Indian Law Institute, 1978.
6. Sunil Yadav, Collective Bargaining: A mode for the settlement of Industrial disputes,
LLJ. III, 2008.
7. S.K. Bhatia: Collective Bargaining Theory and Practice of Effective Industrial Relations,
1985.
8. K.M.Pillai, Labour and Industrial Law, 2005.
9. S.K.Puri: An Introduction to labour and Industrial Laws, 1992.
10. Mahesh Chandra, Industrial Jurisprudence, 1976.

INTERNET/WEB RESOURCES

1. www.livemint.com
2. www.indiatoday.in
3. www.thehindubusinessline.com
4. www.businessstandard.com
5. www.economictimes.indiatimes.com
6. www.businesstimes.com
7. www.legalservicesindia.com
8. www.shareyouressays.com
9. books.google.co.in
10. www.persmin.gov.in

Page | 15