Know the judicial pronouncements which elucidate that who will be considered as 'workmen' and what benefits will they receive
Who is Workman as per statue?
The definition of workman is the
Industrial Dispute Act under section 2 (s), “any person 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.
But it clearly does not include:
Person who is subject
to Air Force Act, Army Act, or the Navy Act.
Person employed in
police service as an officer or employee of a prison
Person who engage in
managerial or administrative job
Person who act in
supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding Rs. 10,000 per month or exercises.
Industrial Dispute Act 1947, salient
features
The act aims at preventing illegal
strikes and lockouts
It aims at building harmony between
employer and the workman in any industry
Speedy trial through separate tribunal
for smooth working
Relief to workman in matter of layoff
and retrenchment
Investigation and settlement of
industrial dispute with a right of representation.
Judicial Pronouncement on ‘Who is
workman?’
SK Maini v M/s Caron Sahu Company[1]
The Supreme Court held that to determine whether a man is a workman or
not principal nature of duties and functions are important – not the
designation
The Sahu corporation employed SK Maini
as a manager of a medical store. Though the designation is of a manager, but
still most of the work carried out by him was of clerical nature. He therefore
claimed that he is to be considered as workman. The Supreme Court held that
when there is a question to determine whether a person is a workman or not, not
his designation but rather his nature of work should be considered. Here the Supreme
Court considered Saini as workman.
Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. v Workmen[2]
Whether a person is employed in a supervisory capacity or on a clerical
work is a workman and how it needs to be determined?
Prafulla Kumar The court held that designation of a person does not
determine whether a person is carrying out a managerial or administrative work
(or any of such work which is exempted from considering workman), but what the
court should consider is the nature of work carrying out by the person.
Simla Devi Devi v Presiding Officer[3]
A part time worker is a workman
Simla devi was employed in a government
hospital. She used to do part time work, like thrice a week. The statue is
Industrial Dispute Act is silent about the part time workers. The court
held that yes, part time worker will be considered as worker. Because nowhere
is mentioned the duration of work or mode of payment for work in the statue.
She was working in the hospital and receiving the wage; therefore, she will be
considered as workman u/s 2(s) of the ID Act.
Judicial Pronouncement Who will not consider as workman?’
Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills v State of UP[4]
Doctor and Compounder are not workman
The issue was that the doctor and
compounder were not getting the festival/holiday wages and they raised
Industrial dispute. They were supported by the trade union. The court has to
decided that whether doctor and compounder can be considering as work man, the
court held when you look at the definition of workman, it says a person who
does manual work whether skilled or unskilled will be considered workman. Work
done in the Managerial and administrative capacity will not be considered
workman. They really don’t do physical work per say, but rather prescribe
medicine and gives opinion on the basis of education they have received. This
is a profession carried out. Hence any person employed in any profession will
not be considered as work man.
The court says that ‘No’, even of the
person is giving opining on the basis of education acquired and experience the
gained and hence they would not be considered as workman. Even compounder
has to work on the command of doctor. They do not do as such manual labour and
also sometimes they are acting on the basis of their experience and provide the
basic medicines to the customers.
Hence even lawyers are not workers or
any person who carry out professional work
A Sundaramba v Govt. of Goa, Daman
&Diu[5]
Teacher employed by educational institute, whether the institution is
primary, secondary, graduate or postgraduate education are not workman
Sundaramba was working as a teacher in
a government school. Later her job got terminated. She claimed that working a s
teacher in a state-run school, needs a lot of clerical work to be carried out.
School teachers are made to do clerical work on many occasions and hence should
be consider as workman irrespective of the designation of a teacher. The court
held that the teacher impart education, which is in a nature of mission of
noble vocation. She not only knows the nature of particular student and build up
their personality. Their clerical work is incidental to their primary or the
main work of imparting education. Imparting education is not carried out by
physical labour, even guest lectures delivered by experts cannot be considered
as workman.
Teachers employed by any education
institution can never be consider a workman. They carry out a professional
work.
Orissa State Road Transport Corporation
Employees Association v Orissa State Road Transport Corporation[6]
Station Master and traffic inspector are not a workman
The Station Master and Traffic
Inspector were working for a very long duration of time (12 to 14 years) in
railways and then they were later terminated. The issue was raised that they
did not receive any provident fund on their retirement. The question before the
supreme court was whether they are workman or not.
Court held that these two works are
carried out in supervisory capacity. They have to signal the train looking at
the monitor and supervise the station. But still they will not be considered as
workman because the salary including all their allowances they were drawing out
during their tenure of employment were more than the statutory
amount as fixed in the provision u/s 2(s) (i.e. is 10,000 per month) for a
workman. Hence the station inspector and station master will not be considered
as workman.
Why is it important to be considered as
Workman?
It is important because looking at the
amount of benefits given under the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and the Trade
Union Act 1926 are mind-boggling.
Provide relief to workmen in the matter
of layoff, retrenchment and closure of an undertaking. Provides with the power
of Collective Bargaining to the subservient. The matter is refer to the
Industrial Tribunal and also got the power to bring respective responsible
government in the court as a party if any dispute arose and claim adequate
compensation. Speedy trial and peaceful and ambient settlement of dispute. A
number of authorities get involved like: Works Committee, Conciliation
Officers, Board of Conciliation, Courts of Enquiry, Labour Courts, Industrial
Tribunal and National Tribunal for any industrial dispute, which take care and
provide justice to the workman. Wages, Relief and standard of working
conditions are being taken care of by the central government, they set
the parameters workmen’s situation, e.g. minimum wages being provided,
and other social security as per the new code for wages (central rules) 2020
and likewise amendments comes into effect. Overall, the workman is being taken
care of at its best by the government.
For the purpose of conciliation there
are: Works committee, Conciliating officers and Board
of conciliation. For arbitration there is court of inquiry and for the
arbitration purpose there are: Labour court, Industrial tribunal and National
tribunal. (for more information upon this please refer to our blog on
Institutions for settlement of industrial dispute.)
Institutions for settlement of Industrial Dispute
Read our article on the Code for wages
(central rule) 2020 for better clarity of the new code and relief granted by
central government to workman.
Important changes in new code on wages
[1]
(AIR) 1994 SC 1824
[2]
(1969) 2LLJ 670 (SC)
[3]
(1998) 2 LLN 305
[4]
AIR 1955 ALL 578
[5]
AIR 1988 SC 1700
[6]
(2001) 2 LLN 520 (Ori)
0 Comments