Concept of “Workman”

Preface

The concept of "workman" holds a significant place in labor law, particularly within the framework of
the Industrial Disputes (ID) Act 1947, where it serves as a linchpin for defining the rights and
obligations pertinent to industrial relations. This definition, encapsulated in Section 2(s) of the Act,
articulates the broad spectrum of roles and responsibilities within various industries, and establishes
essential criteria for determining who qualifies as a workman.

This essay aims to provide a detailed exploration of the definition and implications surrounding the term
"workman," as specified in the Indian legal context. It analyzes the multifaceted aspects of employment,
including the nature of work performed, the relationship between employer and employee, and the
critical distinctions between different categories of workers. The analysis includes judicial
interpretations that have shaped and refined the understanding of this definition over time, ensuring that
it addresses the complexities of modern labor dynamics.

Furthermore, the essay scrutinizes the exclusions encapsulated within the definition—highlighting
groups such as employees in managerial or administrative roles, and those governed by specific military
laws—emphasizing the rationale behind these exclusions. Through a thorough investigation of pertinent
case law and the legal nuances surrounding the term "workman," this discourse sheds light on the
implications of the definition for workers' rights and industrial relations.

In essence, this essay not only elucidates the legal parameters defining "workman," but it also
underscores the socio-economic significance of recognizing and protecting the rights of those engaged
in varied forms of labor within the industrial landscape. With a comprehensive approach, it aims to
enhance awareness and foster understanding among legal practitioners, policymakers, and workers
themselves about the critical components of this foundational concept in labor law.

 Definition of Workman:

As per Section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947

“Workman” means 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 expressed or implied and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in
relation to an industrial dispute, includes:

a) any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a
consequence of that dispute, or

b) any person whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include
any such person:
i. who is subject to the Army Act, 1950, or the Air Force 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 is employed in a supervisory capacity drawing more than Rs. 1,600 per month as wages; or

v. who is exercising 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.

The definition of “Workman” can be divided into four parts which has been subject to various judicial
interpretations. They are as follows:-

(a) Place of employment of a Workman: Employed in “any industry”

To be a workman, a person must have been employed in an activity which is an “industry” as per
Section 2(j). Even those employed in operation incidental to such industry are also covered under the
definition of workman.

In, J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. L.A.T., 1964, the Supreme Court held that
‘malis’ looking after the garden attached to bungalows provided by the company to its officers and
directors, are engaged in operations incidentally connected with the main industry carried on by the
employer. It is observed that in this connection it is hardly necessary to emphasise that in the modern
world, industrial operations have become complex and complicated and for the efficient and successful
functioning of any industry, several incidental operations are called in aid and it is the totality of all
these operations that ultimately constitutes the industry as a whole. Wherever it is shown that the
industry has employed an employee to assist one or the other operation incidental to the main industrial
operation, it would be unreasonable to deny such an employee the status of a workman on the ground
that his work is not directly concerned with the main work or operation of the industry.

(b) Who is a workman: Person employed

A person cannot be a workman unless he is employed by the employer in any industry. The relationship
of employer and workman is usually supported by a contract of employment which may be expressed or
implied. An apprentice is not entitled to wages and cannot claim the amount due under sec. 33(c)(2) of
the ID Act 1947. (Achutan v. Babu, 199 6).

But such a question cannot be derived merely on the basis of apprenticeship contract (R.D. Paswan v.
L.I.C., 1999). The employee agrees to work under the supervision and control of his employer. Here one
must distinguish between contract for employment or service and contract of employment or service. In
the former, the employer can require what is to be done but in the latter, he can not only order what is to
be done, but also how it shall be done.
In the case of contract for employment, the person will not be held as a ‘workman’ but only an
‘independent contractor’. There should be due control and supervision by the employer for a master and
servant relationship (Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra). Payment on piece rate
by itself does not disprove the relationship of master and servant. Even a part time employee is a worker
(P.N. Gulati v. Labour Commissioner). Since he is under an obligation to work for fixed hours every
day, jural relationship of master and servant would exist. A casual worker is nonetheless a workman.

(c) Who is covered under the definition: Employed to do skilled or unskilled etc.

Only those persons who are engaged in the following types of work are covered by the definition of
“workman”:

(i) Skilled or unskilled manual work;

(ii) Supervisory work;

(iii) Technical work;

(iv) Clerical work.

Where a person is doing more than one work, he must be held to be employed to do the work which is
the main work he is required to do.

Case law: Burma Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. of India v. Burma Shell Management Staff
Association.

Facts:

The members of the Burma Shell Management Staff Association, designated as junior management staff
raised an industrial dispute. The Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. The
reference was confined to the members of the junior management staff working in the Maharashtra
region. At the time of reference the lowest basic salary drawn by a member of the Association was Rs.
535/-. On behalf of the company a preliminary objection was raised that none of the members of the
association was a workman.

The members of the association were classified into various categories. Out of these, members of six
categories were held to be workmen, namely

(1) Transport Engineer

(2) District Engineers

(3) Foreman (Chemicals),

(4)Fueling Superintendents
(5) Chemists and

(6) Sales Engineering Representatives.

Members belonging to four categories were held not to be workmen, namely,

(1) Blending Supervisors

(2) Foremen

(3)Depot Superintendents and

(4) District Sales Representatives.

The Company challenged the decision of' the Tribunal in respect of the six categories held to be
workmen and the Association challenged the decision in respect of the four categories held not to
be workmen. The Association contended that whenever a technical man was employed in an
industry it had to be held he was employed to do technical work respective of the manner in which
and the occasions on which the technical knowledge of that person was actually brought into use
and to hold otherwise would result in making the word 'technical' redundant in the definition of
workman' in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by Act 36 of 1956.

JUDGEMENT :

Of the members of six categories held to be workmen (1) Transport Engineer (2) District
Engineer (3) Foreman (chemicals) and (4) Sales Engineering Representative must be held not to be
workmen; and of the members of four categories held not to be workmen, the tribunal referred with
respect to blending Supervisors working in the Wadilube plant.

A workman must be held to be employed to do that work which is the main work he is required
to do, even though he may be incidentally doing other types of work. Therefore, in determining which
of the employees in the various categories are covered by the definition of 'workman, one has to see
what is the main or substantial work which they are employed to do.

Case Law: National Engineering Industries Ltd. V. Kishan Bhageria, 1988

In this case, respondent Kishan Bhageria was working as an internal auditor. He was absent from
the office for a period of time, so the company stopped his salary and sent him on suspension.
The respondent filed an application but he was dismissed from the service.

The respondent filed an application before the Labour Court against his dismissal. The appellant
contended that respondent’s claim was not maintainable as he was not under the term
“workman” provided under the act. The Labour Court held that the respondent was a workman as
under the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
 The appellant moved to the High Court of Rajasthan against the order. The single bench judge of
the Rajasthan High Court held that respondent Kishan Bhageria was not a workman as under the
said act. The appeal was again filed before the Division Bench of High Court where the order of
the single bench judge was reversed.

The management company moved to the apex court against the order. The Supreme Court stated
that the fact in issue was whether the person was working for the managerial post or supervisory
post, and for the purpose of deciding it, one has to look into the nature of the duties of the
claimant.

The Supreme Court stipulated that a supervisor is a person taking decisions on the behalf of the
company. The person can’t be held as a supervisor if he is merely reporting the affairs of the
company and the management.

In the said matter the apex court held the respondent as “workman” as he was not engaged in
managerial work or administration work. The Court also held that the person if would have been
engaged in work of assigning duties among the other staffs then he shall qualify the criteria of
being a “supervisor”.

 Manual work referred in the definition includes work which involves physical exertion as
distinguished from mental or intellectual exertion. A person engaged in supervisory work will be
a workman only if he is drawing more than Rs. 1,600 per month as wages. The designation of a
person is not of great importance, it is the nature of his duties which is the essence of the issue. If
a person is mainly doing supervisory work, but incidentally or for a fraction of the time, also
does some clerical work, it would have to be held that he is employed in supervisory capacity;
and conversely, if the main work done is of clerical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory
duties are also carried out incidentally, will not convert his employment as a clerk into one in
supervisory capacity. In other words, the dominant purpose of employment must be taken into
account at first and the gloss of additional duties to be rejected, while determining status and
character of the job. The work of labour officer in jute mill involving exercise of initiative, tact
and independence is a supervisory work. But the work of a teller in a bank does not show any
element of supervisory character.

 A person doing technical work is also held as a workman. A work which depends upon the
special training or scientific or technical knowledge of a person is a technical work. Once a
person is employed for his technical qualifications, he will be held to be employed in technical
work irrespective of the fact that he does not devote his entire time for technical work. Thus, the
person doing technical work such as engineers, foreman, technologist, medical officer,
draughtsman, etc., will fall within the definition of “workman”. A medical representative whose
main and substantial work is to do canvassing for promotion of sales is not a workman within the
meaning of this Section. However, a salesman, whose duties included manual as well as clerical
 work such as to attend to the customer, prepare cash memos, to assist manager in daily routine is
a workman. A temple priest is not a workman (Sh. Suresh Chand v. Manas Mandir, 2015).

Case law: Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co Ltd v. RA Bidoo

It was held that a person is said to be employed in a technical capacity if he possess some special
skills. In the present case, the respondent was employed as a camera operator in the company. He
was working in the screen-making department of textile mills and was responsible for testing
new chemicals and graphite films and, accordingly, advice the management of their suitability.
The company terminated the employment of the respondent without assigning any reason. The
respondent raised an industrial dispute contending that his termination was not justified. The
Court considered the nature of his work and held that the work done by him was not of a
technical nature as it did not require application of any special knowledge which would result in
the creation of a work peculiar to the talent of the respondent. Hence, the petition was dismissed.

Supervisory work: Where the employee possess the power of assigning duties and distribution of work
such authority of employee may be indicative of his being supervisor doing supervision. In a broad
sense Supervisor is one who has authority over others: someone who superintends and directs others. An
employee who in the interest of the employer has responsibility to directly control the work done by the
other workers and if the work is not done correctly to guide them to do it correctly in accordance with
norms shall certainly be a Supervisor. A supervisory work may be contra-distinguished from managerial
and administrative work and, so also a supervisor from manager and administrator. In any event, Indian
courts have ruled that where an employee has multifarious duties and a question is raised whether he is a
workman or not, the court should consider the primary and basic duties of the person concerned. The
determinative factor is the main duties of the concerned employee and not some work done incidentally.
For instance, where an employee is mainly engaged in supervisory work and if he is asked incidentally
to do some clerical work, these additional duties cannot change the character and status of the person
and he will be considered as a workman doing supervisory work.

 Whether teachers are workmen or not

After amendment of Section 2(s) of the Act, the issue whether “teachers are workmen or not”
was decided in many cases but all the cases were decided on the basis of definition of workman
prior to amendment. The Supreme Court in Sunderambal v. Government of Goa, held that the
teachers employed by the educational institution cannot be considered as workmen within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, as imparting of education which is the main function of the
teachers cannot be considered as skilled or unskilled manual work or supervisory work or
technical work or clerical work. The Court in this case also said that manual work comprises of
work involving physical exertion as distinct from mental and intellectual exertion. The teacher
necessarily performs intellectual duties and the work is mental and intellectual as distinct from
manual.

(d) Who is not a ‘workman’ under the ID Act,1947

In Ved prakash gupta vs. m/s delton cable India (p) ltd.,1984: It was held that a person employed in
managerial capacity or administrative capacity is not a workman.

In Bhaskaram vs. kerela state electricity board 1986: It was held that an apprentice cannot claim any
privilege as workman.

In Vimal kumar Jain vs. labour court, Kanpur & anrs. ,1988: It was held that maintenance engineer
supervising the work of maintenance with the power to grant leave, to initiate disciplinary proceedings
and to make temporary appointments is not a workman.

FACTORS WHICH DETERMINE WHEN AN EMPLOYEE WILL BE A WORKMAN

Contract of employment: The first essential condition for a person to be a workman is that there must be
a contract of employment between the parties and a relationship of employer-employee or master-
servant must exist. Indian courts have ruled that the prima facie test to determine the relationship
between master and servant is the existence of the right in the master to supervise and control the work
done. It is important to be able to direct not only the work to be performed but also the manner in which
it shall be done.

Contract labour: At this stage, it is pertinent to discuss an important and a growing segment of the
workforce – contract labour. Large industrial operations increasingly use the services of an independent
contractor who, in turn, supplies people to an enterprise. Where a contractor employs a workman to do
the work which he contracted with a third person (a company), the workman of the contractor will not
become the workman of the management. For instance, employees engaged by a contractor running the
canteen of a factory cannot be the employees of the company.

Employment in an industry: Another essential condition for a person to be a workman is employment in

an “industry” as defined in Section 2(j) of the Act.

Nature of work: Another determinative factor is the nature of duties and functions enumerated in the
definition of workman. This means that in order to become a workman, an employee must be engaged in
mainly seven types of work i.e. manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical and
supervisory work. However, under modern industrial conditions large numbers of employees are often
required to do more than one work. In such a scenario, it becomes necessary to determine under which
of the seven classifications the employee will fall in order to determine whether he qualifies as a
workman. The scope of the present discussion is limited to the people who are engaged in doing
technical, supervisory and managerial activities.

Conclusion

The definition of "workman" as delineated in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, plays a crucial role in
shaping labor relations within the Indian legal framework. This definition not only determines who is
considered a workman but also establishes vital rights and protections granted to those engaged in
various forms of labor across diverse industries. The comprehensive exploration of this concept reveals
the intricate balance between inclusion and exclusion that governs the identification of workmen,
underscoring the significance of judicial interpretations that continue to refine its meaning in light of
evolving work dynamics.

Through a careful examination of case law and legal provisions, it emerges that the classification of an
individual as a workman hinges on multiple factors, including the nature of work performed, the
contractual relationship between the employer and employee, and the remuneration package. The
delineation of roles such as managerial versus supervisory work further complicates the classification,
necessitating a nuanced understanding of each individual's primary duties and responsibilities.

Moreover, the exclusions specified in the Act, which encompass individuals in managerial positions and
certain other categories, reflect a legislative intent to delineate the scope of worker protections while
maintaining the functional integrity of management. The rigorous legal scrutiny applied to determining
workman status highlights the ongoing need to adapt to the changing nature of work in the modern
economy.

Ultimately, the concept of "workman" transcends a mere legal definition; it serves as a reflection of
broader socio-economic realities and the imperative to ensure equitable treatment for all workers.
Recognizing and protecting the rights of those labeled as workmen is not only a legal requirement but a
moral obligation, vital for fostering fair labor practices within an industrialized society. As labor
dynamics continue to evolve, ongoing dialogue, legislative evaluation, and judicial oversight will be
essential to uphold the foundational principles embedded within this critical aspect of labor law.