INDUSTRIAL

DISPUTES ACT,
1947
SECTION 2(S): DEFINITION OF
WORKMAN
• The definition of workman is important because
the Act aims at investigation and settlement of
industrial disputes which implies a difference
between employer and workmen.
• Therefore, tribunal has a right to adjudicate an
industrial dispute when such dispute relates to
an employee who is workman.
• Workman means any person employed in an industry
to do any manual, skilled, unskilled, technical,
operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or
reward, whether 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 person who has been dismissed,
discharged, retrenched in connection with, or as a
consequence of, that dispute or whose dismissal,
discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute.
• Workman does not include-
• (i) who is subject to Air Force Act 1950, or the Army
Act 1950, or Navy Act, 1957.
• (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an
officer or other employee of a prison,
• (iii) who is employed mainly in managerial or
administrative capacity,
• (iv) who is employed in supervisory capacity, draws
wages exceeding 10000 rupees per month.
CASES ON WORKMAN

• Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. State

of Bihar- In this case, a person was appointed
as head clerk in the office of Divisional Manager
but there was no evidence that he was doing
managerial or supervisory work. His conditions
of service were governed by standing orders of
Rajya Transport.
• He was held to be a workman.
• B.S.O.S. & D. Co. v. Management Staff Assam-
it was held that a person cannot be assumed to
be workman on the ground that he does not
come within the four exceptions in Section 2(s).
• Punjab National Bank v. Ghulam Dastagir- the respondent
was a personal driver of the area manager of the appellant
bank.
• Area manager was given personal allowance by the bank to
enable him to employ personal driver of his own jeep.
• All the requirements in maintaining the jeep were borne by
the bank.
• There was no material to show that the said driver was
employed by the bank or was paid salary by bank.
• Driver was not held to be a workmen under Sec. 2(s).
S.K. VERMA V. MAHESH
CHANDRA
• The Development Officer of Life Insurance
Corporation was held to be a workman.
• Keeping in view the nature of duties performed
by such officers and the powers vested in them,
they cannot be said to be engaged in any
administrative or managerial work.
VED PRAKASH V. M/S DETTON
CABLES INDIA
• The appellant was employed as a Security
Inspector at the gate of factory premises. He
was held to be a workman within this section
because the duty of the appellant was neither
managerial nor supervisory in nature.
J. PHILLIPS V. LABOUR COURT,
HYDERABAD
• Designation alone is not important to determine
whether a person is working in a supervisory
capacity or is a workman. The test to decide
whether an employee is a workman is to take
account of his basic or primary duties and the
dominant purpose of his employment.
• The focus has to be on nature of duties.
• A clerk who has been given the assistance of a
peon cannot be said to be working in a
supervisory capacity.
MISS A. SUNDARAMBAL V.
GOVT. OF GOA
• It was held that in order to be a workmen an
employee should be employed to do any
skilled, unskilled, manual or clerical work.
Judged in this light, a teacher cannot be a
workmen.
MANAGEMENT OF SONEPAT
COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS V. AJIT

• The legal assistant has not been performing

any stereo-type job, that is clerical work but
one which involved creativity. Such a job would
not make legal assistant a workman under
section 2(5) of the ID Act.
 KESAVA BHATT V. SRI RAM AMBULAM
TRUST
• The Kerala High Court held that the priest is not a workman.
In its opinion, a pujari cannot be equated with mere wage
earner and his services cannot be treated as manual or
clerical.
• There was a difference between mahant, cook and a clerk
who work around the precincts of the temple or corridor and
office rooms and priests placed in sanctum sanctorum and
who silently said his prayers.
• The diety or God he serves cannot be said to be a profit
producing scheme and the owner of the temple cannot be
equated with the owner of industrial establishment.
• Hence, priest is not workman.
BHARAT BHAWAN TRUST V. BHARAT
BHAWAN ARTISTS ASSOCIATION AND
ANOTHER

• The Trust was engaged in the promotion of art and

the preservation of artistic talent.
• Such activity was not for large scale production of
goods and services involved in systematic activity
with cooperation of employer and employee.
• It was held that neither the trust was industry not
the respondents were workman as the nature of
work was creative which only a person with an
artistic talent could manage.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WORKMEN
AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.

• Dharangdhara Chemical Works Ltd. V. State of

Saurashtra AIR 1956 SC 264
• For any person to be a workmen, it is necessary
that he should be in employment of the
employer. Merely, a contact to do some work is
not enough. Unless a relationship of master and
servant which is implied in the term
“employed” is admitted or established, the
person concerned is no workmen.
AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT

• The main object of industrial dispute is

investigation and settlement of industrial
dispute. With this objective, various authorities
have been created in this Act.
• The adjudication of industrial dispute has at the
first instance been kept out of the jurisdiction of
Municipal Courts so that these disputes are
settled by some agencies.
• The Works Committee, Conciliation Officer, Board
of Conciliation and Courts of Inquiry endeavor to
settle the difference before it may be adjudicated
by Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal.
• The various modes of settlement of dispute are-
• (1) Conciliation
• (2) Adjudication
• (3) Arbitration
• They all aim at amicable settlement of the
industrial dispute.
• Those authorities who use conciliation as the
sole method of settlement of disputes are the:
• (1) Works Committee
• (2) Conciliation Officer
• (3) Board of Conciliation
• The Labour Court, Tribunal and National Tribunal are
adjudicating authorities that decide any dispute
under the Act.
• Section 10-A of the Act makes provision for
voluntary reference of disputes to arbitration.
• Apart from the above, provision has also been made
for the constitution of a Court of Inquiry whose main
function is to enquire into a matter appearing to be
connected with or relevant to any industrial dispute.
SECTION 3: WORKS
COMMITTEE
• The following are duties of the Works Committee-
• (1) To promote measures for securing and preserving
amity and good relations between employers and
workmen.
• (2) To achieve the above object, it is their duty to
comment upon matters of common interest or concerns of
employer or workmen
• (3) to endeavor to compose any material difference of
opinion in respect of common interest or concern between
employer or workmen.
• This section is applicable to workmen who has 100
employees or more on any day of the preceding twelve
months.
• The number of representatives of the Works Committee
shall not be less that the number of representatives of
the employer.
• They are normally concerned with the problems arising
from day to day working of the concern and functions of
the Works Committee is to ascertain the grievances of
workmen and endeavors to seek amicable settlement.
SECTION 4: CONCILIATION
OFFICER