SUPERVISOR WILL NOT COME UNDER THE DEFINITION OF ‘WORKMAN’ UNDER SECTION 2(s) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

Industrial Disputes Act

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (‘Act’ for short) as enacted by the legislature to settle the industrial disputes.  The object of the Act is to ensure social justice to both the employers and employees and advance the progress of industry by bringing about the existence of harmony and cordial relationship between the parties. 

Workman

Section 2(d) of the Act defines the term ‘workman’ as 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, or the Army Act, 1950 or the Navy Act, 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 Rs.1600/- 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.

According to the above section if the management without following the legal procedure, relieved him from service abruptly the same is treated as illegal termination.

Issue

The issue to be discussed in this article is as to whether a supervisor person is coming under the definition of ‘workman’ with reference to decided recent case law.

Case law

In LENIN KUMAR RAY VERSUS M/S. EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD. AND THE MANAGEMENT, M/S. EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD. VERSUS LENIN KUMAR RAY - 2024 (10) TMI 1122 - SUPREME COURT, the Express Publications Limited has publication unit at Bhubaneswar.  In that unit the appellant was appointed as Junior Engineer on 07.06.1997 and later confirmed by the management on 13.07.1998.  Later the official was promoted to Assistant Engineer with effect from 01.05.2000 and confirmed in the said post with effect from 01.05.2001.

The said appellant was relieved from service with effect from 08.10.2003 after giving one month salary in lieu of notice.  A sum of Rs.6995.65 was paid towards one month salary.  The appellant, being aggrieved against the order of the management, referred the case to the Labor Authorities.  The Labor Court referred this dispute to conciliation.  As there was a failure in the conciliation proceedings the Labor Authorities decided that there was a dispute existing and referred the matter to the Labor Court as Industrial Dispute.  The Labor Court passed an award on 22.09.2010 holding that the employee was a workman in terms of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and ordered for reinstatement of the appellant with a compensation of Rs.7500/- in lieu of back wages.

The management challenged the award before the High Court.  The writ petition was partly allowed by the High Court.  The High Court set aside the reinstatement order of the Labor Court and upheld the order that the appellant falls within the definition of ‘Labor’.   Against this order the management filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the order to the extent that the appellant was coming under the definition of ‘workman’.  The appellant challenged the order of High Court to the extent of the order of the High Court setting aside the order of Labor Court for reinstatement and compensation.

The appellant submitted the following before the Supreme Court-

• If there is doubt on the law and facts, the benefit shall be extended to the labor.
• Concurrent findings of facts rendered by the Courts below cannot be interfered with by the writ Court.
• Whether or not an employee is a ‘workman’ under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act is required to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties and functions; and the designation of an employee is not of much importance and what is important is the nature of duties being performed by the employee.
• Merely having a junior does not make an employee a supervisor or managerial cadre.
• In cases of wrongful / illegal termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule11.
• Since the order of termination is void ab initio, the workman is entitled to full back wages.

The management submitted the following before the Supreme Court-

• Initially the appellant was appointed as Junior Engineer (E&C) in group 3 (Admn)

and thereafter as Assistant Engineer (E&C) in group 2A (Admn).

• The nature of the work performed by the appellant was in the supervisory capacity.
• The appellant was terminated since his service was no longer required.
• The statutory limit required for a person to be qualified as a ‘workman’ drawing the salary not exceeding Rs.1600/- per month.
• The High Court wrongly applied the limit Rs.10,000/- which came into effect from 15.09.2010 whereas the appellant was relieved from his services during the year 2003.
• The management paid one month salary in lieu of one month notice as required by the Industrial Disputes Act.
• The appellant accepted the cheque for one month salary in lieu of notice and encashed the cheque.
• There is no procedural violation of law in terminating the appellant.
• The order of High Court setting aside the award of the Labor Court to the extent of reinstatement of the appellant along with a compensation of Rs.75000/- required no interference by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the records on record.

The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the Act especially Section 2(s) of the Act defining the term ‘workman’.  The Supreme Court analyzed the depositions made by the appellant before the Labor Court.  The appellant deposed that he was not an executive cadre and there were senior officers to supervise him and control his work.  But in cross examination he deposed that he was supervising the work of two Junior Engineers.  Accordingly, he would be the supervisor and not the workman.  In the absence of any concrete material to demonstrate the nature of duties discharged by the employee, the employment orders issued by the management will have to be taken into consideration and as per the same, the employee was appointed as Junior Engineer and was promoted as Assistant Engineer, on the administrative side.

The Supreme Court held that applying the pre-amended provision of section 2(s), since the employee was terminated from service on 08.10.2003 and was drawing salary of more than Rs.1,600/-, he does not come within the definition of ‘workman’. Therefore, the employee is not a “workman” as defined under section 2(s) and is not covered by the provisions of the Act.  Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court upholding the finding of the Labor Court that the employee was a ‘workman’ within the definition of post-amended section 2(s).

In respect of reinstatement of the appellant with a compensation, the Supreme Court observed that in terms of the appointment letter the management paid one month salary in lieu of one month’s notice.  The said payment was duly accepted by the appellant and the cheque was encashed immediately.  There is no procedural irregularity on the part of the management in terminating the services of the appellant.  Therefore, the Supreme Court held that there was no infirmity in the order of the High Court setting aside the order of Labor Court reinstatement of the appellant with a compensation of Rs.75000/- in lieu of back wages. 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and partly allowed the appeal filed by the management.