DEFINITION OF WORKMAN

1. Under Industrial Disputes Act

This Act applies to all industries and establishments which employ workers, irrespective of the
number employed. Under Section 2(j) of the Act, the definition of "industry" means any
business, trade, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service,
employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen.
“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 3 [ten
thousand 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.]
However, all those employees who do not fall within the ambit of the definition of a workman
will not be entitled to benefits under the Act. In Purandaran vs. Hindustan Lever Limited
[2001 LLR 525 Kerala HC] , the petitioner adopted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS)
introduced by the respondent and, subsequently, left employment. Thereafter, he learned that
there was a change of terms in the VRS under which 15% in excess of what the petitioner got
was payable. The petitioner claimed the payment of the enhanced amount from the respondent
and raised an industrial dispute. The Court held that the petitioner had adopted the VRS, which
amounted to his resignation, and, as a result thereof he is not entitled to claim the status of a
workman and so cannot raise any industrial dispute. Clearly, the prerequisite for an industrial
dispute is that the person raising it must fulfill the criteria of a workman.
Silver Jubilee tailoring House Vs Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments (1973) II
LLJ 495 SC), In this case the owner establishment ‘Silver jubilee tailoring House’ supplied
cloth to the tailors and paid remuneration on a piece rate. He had never controlled them in any
manner apart from supplying the cloth as per the capacity of the tailor and paying money as per
the piece-rate. He provided sewing machines, cloth and other sewing materials to them. He did
not maintain any registers under the labour laws. The Chief Inspector of Shops and
Establishments prosecuted him. The lower courts gave the judgment treating the piece-rated
tailors as the ‘workmen’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the industrial disputes Act, 1947.
He appealed to the Supreme Court. He argued that he had no technical knowledge of tailoring
and he had engaged them on contract basis, that too on piece-rate, and that they were not regular
employees, and also that his was a seasonal business. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held against
the owner and treated all the piece-rated tailors as workmen.

Under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923

The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 is really the first beneficial legislation for labour in
India. It is an essentially a social assistance measure, as it places the entire responsibility on the
employer for the payment of compensation for death, permanent or partial and temporary
disablement.
The Commissioner has power to award compensation more than what is claimed by the
workman if the facts do warrant such an award; In Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation v. B.T. Somasekharaiah, 1994 LLR 251 (Karn) Important Objects of the Act (i)
It gives cheap and quick remedy to the injured workmen or the dependants of the deceased
workmen. (ii) Civil Courts are excluded. (iii) The Commissioner is empowered to grant
immediate relief. (iv) The Commissioner is not bound to follow the technicalities and formalities
of a Court. He is a quasi-judicial authority. (v) The Act clearly defines injury, workman, accident
arising out of and in the course of employment, methods for calculating the compensation etc.
(vi) The definition of a workman given under this Act is wider than any other labour legislation.
(vii) Fee prescribed on application is only normal and lowest (viii) It is the first labour welfare
legislation in India (ix) Though the Act was enacted in 1923,the spirit of the Constitution Of
India, 1950 is seen in it.
Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,1923 defines ‘workmen’. “WORKMAN”
means any person who is— (i) a railway servant as defined in 3[clause (34) of section 2 of the
Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989)] not permanently employed in any administrative, district or
sub-divisional office of a railway and not employed in any such capacity as is specified in
Schedule II, or [(ia) (a) a master, seaman or other member of the crew of a ship, (b) a captain or
other member of the crew of an aircraft, (c) a person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic,
cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle, (d) a person recruited for
work abroad by a company, and who is employed outside India in any such capacity as is
specified in Schedule II and the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle, or company, as the case may be,
is registered in India, or;] 23 (ii) employed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule II,
whether the contract of employment was made before or after the passing of this Act and
whether such contract is expressed or implied, oral or in writing; but does not include any person
working in the capacity of a member of the Armed Forces of the Union ; and any reference to a
workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, includes a reference to his
dependents or any of them.
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Baljeet Singh Versus The Management of State Farms Management
of India Ltd. L.P.A. No.1975/2006, held that "In view of our decision on the first issue, it is not
even necessary to go into this question. We may, however, only say that it is not even necessary
to decide as to whether engagement of the appellant would fall under the `Excepted category
mentioned in Clause (bb) of Section-2 (oo) and would amount to retrenchment or not on that
ground. It was necessary for the appellant to pass the said test and in the absence whereof the
Management which is a public body could not have given him employment on regular basis. The
daily wage arrangement continued which was given for specific period and extended from time
to time for few months only. In a course like this even if it is presumed that the provisions of
Section 25(F) were attracted, the appellant could not have been given the relief of reinstatement
with back wages but could get some compensation only. [See:M.P.State Agro Industries
Development Corpn. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. S.C.Pandey (2006)2 SCC 716] 16. We, therefore, are not
impressed by any of the arguments made by learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of
which challenge to the judgment of learned Single Judge is laid. Accordingly, we dismiss this
appeal without any orders as to costs."

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Workmen Of Dimakuchi Tea Estate vs The Management Of

Dimakuchi Tea ... on 4 February, 1958 held that "It is clear enough that prior to 1956 when
the definition of 'workman' in the Act was further widened to include a person dismissed,
discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of the dispute or whose
dismissal, discharge or retrenchment led to the dispute, a workman who had been discharged
earlier and not during the dispute was not a workman within the meaning of the Act. If the
expression "any person" in the third part of the definition clause were to be strictly equated with
'any workman' then there could be no industrial dispute, prior to 1956, with regard to a workman
who had been discharged earlier than the dispute, even though the discharge itself had led to the
dispute. That seems to be the reason why the Legislature used the expression 'any person' in the
third part of the definition clause so as to put it beyond any doubt that the non-employment of
such a dismissed workman was also within the ambit of an industrial dispute. There was a wide
gap between a 'workman' and an 'employee' under the definition if the word 'workman' in s.
2(s) as it stood prior to 1956; All existing workmen were no doubt employees; but all employees
were not workmen. The supervisory staff did not come within the definition. The gap has been
reduced to some extent by the amendments of 1956; part of the supervisory staff (who draw
wages not exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem) and those who were
otherwise workmen but were discharged or dismissed earlier have also come within
the definition. If and when the gap is completely bridged, 'workmen' will be synonymous with
'employees' whether engaged in any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or
clerical work, etc. But till the gap is completely obliterated, there is a distinction
between workmen and non-workmen and that distinction has an important bearing on the
question before us. Limitation no. (3) as formulated by learned counsel for the appellants ignores
the distinction altogether and equates 'any person' with 'any employee' - past, present or future :
this we do not think is quite correct or consistent with the other provisions of the Act. The
Act avowedly gives a restricted meaning to the word 'workman' and almost all the provisions of
the Act are intended to confer benefits on that class of persons who generally answer to the
description of workmen. The expression 'any person' in the definition clause means, in our
opinion, a person in whose employment or non-employment or terms of employment, or
conditions of labour the workmen as a class have a direct or substantial interest - with whom
they have, under the scheme of the Act, a community of interest. Our reason for so holding is not
merely that the Act makes a distinction between workmen and non-workmen, but because a
dispute to be a real dispute must be one in which the parties to the dispute have a direct or
substantial interest. Can it be said that workmen as a class are directly or substantially interested
in the employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour of persons
who belong to the supervisory staff and are, under provisions of the Act, non-workmen on
whom the Act has conferred no benefit, who cannot by themselves be parties to an industrial
dispute and for whose representation the Act makes no particular provision ? We venture to think
that the answer must be in the negative. Limitation (4) formulated by learned counsel for the
appellants is also too generally stated. We recognise that solidarity of labour or general interest
of labour welfare may furnish, in some cases, the necessary nexus of direct or substantial interest
in a dispute between employers and workmen, but the principle of solidarity of the labour
movement or general welfare of labour must be based on or correlated to the principle of
community of interest; the workmen can raise a dispute in respect of those persons only in the
employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of labour of
whom they have a direct or substantial interest. We think that Chagla, C.J., correctly put the
crucial test when he said in Narendra Kumar Sen v. All India Industrial Disputes (Labour
Appellate) Tribunal .

24. sLearned council for the appellants has also drawn our attention to the definition of a 'trade
dispute' in the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926. That definition is also in the same terms, but with
this vital difference that the word 'workmen' means there "all persons employed in trade or
industry whether or not in the employment of the employer with whom the trade dispute arises."
It is obvious that the very wide definition of the word 'workman' determines the ambit of
the definition of a 'trade dispute' in the Trade Unions Act, 1926. The provisions of that Act have
different objects in view, one of which is the expenditure of the funds of a registered Trade
Union 'on the conduct of trade disputes on behalf of the Trade Union or any member thereof'.
We do not think that that definition for the purposes of an Act like the Trade Unions Act is of
any assistance in construing the definition in the Act with which we are now concerned, even
though the words employed are the same; for one thing, the meaning of the word 'workman'
completely changes the ambit of the definition clause, and for another, the objects, scheme and
purpose of the two Acts are not the same. For the same reasons, we do not think that with regard
to the precise problem before us much assistance can be obtained by a detailed examination of
English. American or Australian decisions given with regard to the terms of the statutes in force
in those countries. Each Act must be interpreted on its own terms - particularly when
the definition of a 'workman' varies from statute to statute and, with changing conditions, from
time to time, and country to country."