• Sec 2(s) of Industrial Disputes act 1947 defined workmen as • “Any person (including an apprentice ) employed in any industry to do any manual, skilled, unskilled, 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”

1950 • Who is employed in police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison • Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity • Who is being employed in a supervisory capacity. draws wages exceeding Rs 10.000 per mensem .It does not include any person : • Who is subject to the Air Force Act. Army Act. Navy Act.

New India Assurance vs. Sankaralingam PART TIME: WORKMAN .CASE: Div. Manager. A.

New India Assurance Company Ltd.130/• Made a request that his services be regularized • Informed orally that he was not required to work with effect from 15th March 1989 .FACTS • Respondent-writ petitioner was appointed on 2nd January 1986 as a Sweeper-cum-Water Carrier in the Office of the Divisional Manager. • Monthly wage of Rs.

ISSUES • Tribunal also observed that as the duty hours of the workman were only one or two hours a day for which he was paid a sum of Rs.150/. as he had worked only as a part-time employee and that too on an ad-hoc basis .m • Madras High Court found that the finding of the Tribunal was factually wrong • The Tribunal held that Sankaralingam was not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947.p.

.ARGUMENT • A part-time worker is not entitled to the protection granted to a regular employee or "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act.

.DECISION • Supreme Court held the workman’s termination by the company illegal • The apex court also rejected the argument of the company • The apex court citing its earlier rulings said that the definition of `workman' as given in the Industrial Disputes Act does not make any distinction between a full-time employee and a part-time employee.

CASE NAME Bharat Bhawan Trust Vs. Bharat Bhawan Artists Association .

promote and disseminate arts and to manage and expand Bharat Bhawan as a national centre of excellence in creative arts. • The trust entered into various agreements with creative artists for production of drama and theatre management .Facts • Bharat Bhawan Trust was established under the Bharat Bhawan Nyas Adhiniyam.1982 • The main objects of the said Trust are to preserve and explore. innovate.

these artists raised a dispute • The appropriate government referred the dispute to labor court for adjudication .Issue • Apprehending that their services were likely to be terminated or not renewed on the expiry of the contract.

Argument • Bharat Bhawan is an institution engaged in promotion of and any culture cannot be classified as ‘industry’ • Activities carried out by institution do not result in large scale of production .which can be organized by co-operation of employer and employee .production is not the result of systematic activities .

the supreme court held that it was doubtful if the trust can be held to be an industry • It also held that artists were not workmen . • The Labour Court made an order holding on the basis of the documents filed by the parties that the appellant is an industry and the artists are workmen.directed the Labour Court to decide the preliminary objection raised by the appellant on the basis of the documents filed by the parties before the Labour Court. This order was in challenge in this appeal. • On appeal.Decision • The High Court by an order .



Workmen .

FACTS  D. with effect from 28th july 1969.  He raised an industrial dispute on 3rd july 1970  Governor of Delhi referred the dispute for adjudication to the additional labour court Delhi.P.Maheshwari was an employee of Toshniwal Brothers pvt. when his services were terminated. Ltd. .

the duty discharged by D.B and C A. Management of the company classified all their employees into 3 classes A.maheshwari was of clerical nature and not supervisory nature.managerial class B.P.supervisory class C. .other staff  Labour court found that.

Maheshwari was discharging work of clerical nature.  The labour court found that D. .  The single judge and division bench of Delhi high court reversed the findings of LC.the supreme court held the fact that Maheshwari was not discharging supervisory function.  On appeal. was a workman.ISSUES  The issue arose whether an employee discharging the duties of clerical nature.P.

argued that the high court literally exercised appellate powers and recorded the findings that differ from that of LC findings. that appellant was not employed in supervisory capacity.  Shri A. . that this was an unfair reading of labour court’s judgement.ARGUMENT  High court argued that. as labour court was influenced by the fact.K.Gupta the learned counsel for the appellant.

and thus is considered as a worker.  Division bench felt sorry. which the company gave. .DECISION  It was finally decided that the appellant was discharging duties of clerical nature.  The appellant was entitled to rupees 5000. that it did not considered the evidence made by the labour court.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful