WELFARE OFFICER – A WORKMAN?

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

The Welfare provisions for the employees require for the appointment of the Welfare Officer in every factory wherein 500 and or more workers are ordinarily employed.  Specific Rules are framed for the purpose.   The Rules may provide the duties of the welfare officers.  The issue to be discussed in this article is whether the Welfare Officer comes under the definition of ‘workman’ with reference to decided case law.

In ‘Esab India Limited V. Swapan Kumar Chakrobarty and others’ – 2014 (4) TMI 498 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT the respondent was holding a post of Welfare Officer in the petitioner company.  The said post is statutory in nature and is guided by the West Bengal Factories (Welfare Officers) Rules, 1971.    The respondent tendered his voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1997-98.  The request for voluntary retirement was duly accepted.  The respondent raised dispute on the monetary benefits to be paid under the scheme and other statutory benefits.

The respondent approached the Labor Court under Section 33(c) (2) of the said Act praying for compensation of the monetary benefits in terms of the Bonus Act, 196, Employees’ Provided Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and other monetary benefits as provided under the said voluntary scheme.  The petitioner raised the preliminary objection that the respondent is not a ‘workman’ provided under the Act.  The objections of the petitioner before the Labor Court are as follows:

• The West Bengal Factories (Welfare Officers) Rules, 1971 provides for an appointment of the Welfare Officer in every factory wherein 500 workers or more are employed;
• Rule 8 of the said rules contains the conditions of services of the Welfare Officer;
• Rule 9 relates to the duties of the Welfare Officer;
• The nature of work entrusted upon the Welfare Officer is supervisory and in effect is a managerial post;
• Section 2(s) of the said Act does not include any person, who is employed in a supervisory capacity and the nature of duties attached to the officer and the power vested is managerial in nature;
• Therefore the application of the respondent is not maintainable;
• The respondent filled the appraisal form of the workers which proves that the Welfare Officer is a managerial staff and therefore would not come under the definition of ‘workman’;
• The respondent further adduced to the Labor Court that he has to look after the work of canteen, security staff and other workers.

The respondent submitted the following:

• From a meaningful reading of the evidence of the respondent as well as the perennial nature of duties would suggest that he was not holding any supervisory post;
• He has no independent authority to take decisions;
• As per the Rules the Welfare Officer is to assist the management and to liaison between workmen and the management;

The Labor Court decided the preliminary issue in favor of the respondent against which the petitioner approached the High Court.

The High Court before dealing with the issues analyzed the provisions of Welfare Rules.  From the conjoint reading of the provisions it appeared to the Court that the factory having 500 or more workers compulsorily requires an appointment of a Welfare Officer where in the number varies on the strength of the workers.   The Welfare Officer is given the same status as of the departmental heads of the factory and works directly under the control of the Executive of the factory, under whom the departmental heads work.  The Welfare Officer is next to the rank of a departmental head in the factory.  The duties embodied under  Rule 9 is mainly an advisory and assistance in nature to the management, in effect the perennial nature of duties of the Welfare Officer to act as a bridge between the workers and the management relating to the affairs as indicated in Rule 9.

The Court further observed that the Rules denudes the Welfare Officer to deal with the disciplinary case against the worker or to appear before the Conciliation Officer or any Court or Tribunal on behalf of the factory management against the worker except the Conciliation Officer or the Court or Tribunal requires his presence as a witness.  The High Court held that the nomenclature of the post is not determinant factor, but the nature of the duties assigned to the person, both administratively or otherwise, is a primary consideration.

The evidence relied on by the petitioner does not suggest that the respondent was not bestowed with an independent power to take decisions but in fact works as per direction of the management.   Further he was not conferred any power to deal with any disciplinary case against the worker and therefore the Welfare Officer cannot take any action against the worker relating to his dismissal, discharge, termination and/or penal action.

The High Court held that mere nomenclature is not the sole factory to decide the status of a person, but the very nature of the duties and functions discharged is the other finding factors.  The Tribunal found that the respondent was performing a duty to advise the factory management and to assist the management relating to the various facilities and problems of the laborers.   The Tribunal further held that since the respondent has no power to take any penal or disciplinary action against the workers, that itself shows the perennial nature of his duties as a workman as opposed to supervisory.

The High Court held that the findings recorded by the fact finding authority or court should not be disturbed in exercising the power of judicial review, unless there is any unreasonability, irrationality, improbability or against the settled principles of law apart from the violation of the principles of Natural Justice.   The Writ Court should not usurp the power of the Appellate authority/Court where the entire issues are at large, but acts within the limited periphery and restricted arena.  The High Court did not find that any interference is called for against the order of the Labor Court and dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.