WORKMAN

PRACHI TYAGI
LECTURER
JGLS
Workers/Employees (Workmen)
◦ Section 2(s) of IDA

" 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 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 (45 of 1950 ), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950 ), or the Navy
Act, 1957 (62 of 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 ten thousand rupees 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.
Divided into three parts:

oSubstantive

oInclusive

oExclusive

Initially only 4 categories of work was recognized: manual,

unskilled, skilled, technical
In 1982, additional categories were added.

Then the total was: 7 categories of work plus 4 exceptions

IRC

Section 2(l) "employee" means any person (other than an apprentice engaged
under the Apprentices Act, 1961) employed by an industrial establishment to do any
skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, manual, operational, supervisory, managerial,
administrative, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of
employment be express or implied, and also includes a person declared to be an
employee by the appropriate Government, but does not include any member of
the Armed Forces of the Union.
Section 2(zr):
"worker" means any person (except an apprentice as defined under clause (aa) of section 2 of
the Apprentices Act, 1961) 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 includes working journalists as defined in clause (f)
of section 2 of the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service)
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 and sales promotion employees as defined in clause
(d) of section 2 of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, and for the
purposes of any proceeding under this Code in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such
person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched or otherwise terminated 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 is employed in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding eighteen thousand
rupees per month or an amount as may be notified by the Central Government from time to
time:
Provided that for the purposes of Chapter III, "worker"—
(a) means all persons employed in trade or industry; and
(b) includes the worker as defined in clause (m) of section 2 of the Unorganised Workers' Social
Security Act, 2008.
Employer
◦ Section 2 (g) of IDA

employer” means-

(i) in relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority of any department

of the Central Government Government or a State Government the authority
prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is prescribed, the head of the
department;

(ii) in relation to an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority, the chief

executive officer of that authority;
◦ Section 2(m) of IRC
"employer" means a person who employs, whether directly or through any person,
or on his behalf or on behalf of any person, one or more employee or worker in
his establishment and where the establishment is carried on by any department of
the Central Government or the State Government, the authority specified by the
head of the department in this behalf or where no authority is so specified, the
head of the department, and in relation to an establishment carried on by a local
authority, the chief executive of that authority, and includes,—
(i) in relation to an establishment which is a factory, the occupier of the factory
as defined in clause (n) of section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 and, where a
person has been named as a manager of the factory under clause (f) of sub-
section (1) of section 7 of the said Act, the person so named;
(ii) in relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority which
has ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment and where the
said affairs are entrusted to a manager or managing director, such
manager or managing director;
(iii) contractor; and
(iv) legal representative of a deceased employer
Tests
I. Employer-employee Relationship
◦ Control and Supervision Test
◦ Integral Business Test
◦ Integration Test
◦ Certain Relevant factors

II. Categories of Work and Exceptions

 Dharangadhara Chemical Works v. Management AIR 1957
SC 264- Control and Supervision test
◦ ISSUE:
Whether the agarias working in the Salt Works at Kuda in the Rann of Cutch are workmen within the
meaning of the term as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

◦ Appellant’s Contentions:
1.The agarias were independent contractors and not workmen on the ground that the agarias had
power to engage extra labour.
2.Agarias make the payments to these labourers and the appellants have nothing to do with
the same.
3.The appellants do not prescribe any hours of work for these agarias.
4.No muster roll is maintained by appellants nor do they control how many hours in a day and for
how many days in a month the agarias should work.
5.There are no rules as regards leave or holidays.
6.Agarias are free to go out of the works as they like provided they make satisfactory
arrangements for the manufacture of salt.
1. The Supreme Court of India had to determine the nature of the employment
relationship. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether a person is
an employee or an independent contractor depends on the degree of control
and supervision exercised by the employer over the work performed.

2. In this case, it was found that the agarias were subject to significant control
and supervision by the company. The company provided the tools and
materials for the work, specified the work procedures, and had the
authority to dismiss the workmen for unsatisfactory performance.

3.The Supreme Court concluded that the agarias were indeed employees of
Dharagadhara Chemical Works Ltd. and not independent contractors.
Consequently, they were entitled to the benefits and protections provided under the
Industrial Disputes Act, of 1947.
◦ Essential condition of a person being a workman within the terms of the definition:

1. there should be an employment of his by the employer

2. there should be the relationship between the employer and him as between
employer and employee or master and servant

◦ The test which is uniformly applied in order to determine the relationship as

between employer and employee or master and servant is the existence of a
right of control in respect of the manner in which the work is to be done.
The test is, however, not accepted as universally correct.
◦ Prima facie test for the determination of the relationship between master and
servant is the existence of the right in the master to supervise and control
the work done by the servant not only in the matter of directing what work
the servant is to do but also the manner in which he shall do his work.

◦ The nature or extent of control which is requisite to establish the relationship of

employer and employee must necessarily vary from business to business and is by
its very nature incapable of precise definition.

◦ The correct method of approach, therefore, would be to consider whether having

regard to the nature of the work there was due control and supervision by
the employer.
◦ The Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that though certain features which
are usually to be found in a contract of service were absent, that was due
to the nature of the industry and that on the whole the status of the
agarias was that of workmen and not independent contractors.

◦ The supervision and control exercised by the appellants extended to all stages of
the manufacture from beginning to end.

◦ The argument of the appellants is that as, the agaria are under no obligation to
work for fixed hours or days and are to be paid wages not per day or hours
but for the quantity of salt actually produced and passed, at a certain
rate, the very basis on which the relationship of employer and employees rests is
lacking, and that they can only be regarded as independent contractors. The
Supreme Court held that a person can be a workman even though he is paid
not per day but by the job.
◦ Referred to : Sadler v Henlock: “The test here is, whether the defendant retained
the power of controlling the work. No distinction can be drawn from the
circumstances of the man being employed at so much a day or by the job.” “ it
makes no difference that his work is piece- work”.

◦ As regards the second feature relied on for the appellants it is contended that the
agaria are entitled to engage other persons to do the work, that these persons
are engaged by the agaria and are paid by them, that the appellants have
no control over them and that these facts can be reconciled only with the
position that the agaria are independent contractors.
◦ The broad distinction between a workman and an independent contractor lies in this that
while the former agrees himself to work, the latter agrees to get other persons
to work. Now a person who agrees himself to work and does so work and is, therefore, a
workman does not cease to be such by reason merely of the fact that he gets other
persons to work along with him and that those persons are controlled and paid by him.
What determines whether a person is a workman or an independent contractor
is whether he has agreed to work personally or not. If he has, then he is a
workman and the fact that he takes assistance from other persons would not
affect his status.

◦ The agarias are professional labourers. They themselves personally work along with
the members of their families in the production of salt and would, therefore, be
workmen. The fact that they are free to engage others to assist them and pay for them
would not affect their status as workmen.
 HussainBhai v. Alath Factory Employees Union
(1978) 4 SCC 257- Integral business test
◦ Issue:

Whether the worker hired by intermediate contractors can be considered as employees

of the petitioner?

◦ The fact that employees were refused employment, that they contributed
significantly to the industry, that raw materials for the job were supplied by
the management, that factory facilities and equipment belonged to the
management, and that the completed product belonged to the management
is undeniable. The labourers were mostly under the management's
supervision, and defective items were ordered to be repaired by the
management. The combination of all the factors proves that an employer-employee
relationship was formed.
◦ That when a person or group of employees labours to create goods or services
for the benefit of another's business, that other is the employer. He has financial
influence over the workers' sustenance, skill, and ability to continue working.
The real-life link between the employer and employee cannot be thrown out
simply because there is no direct interaction due to shady middlemen.

◦ If the livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour rendered to produce

goods and services for the benefits and satisfaction of an enterprise, the absence of
direct relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries or the make-believe
trappings of detachment from the Management cannot snap the real-life bond.

◦ Of course, if there is total dissociation in fact between the disowning management and
the aggrieved workmen, the employment is, in substance and in real-life terms, by
another. The Management's adventitious connections cannot ripen into real employment.

◦ The appeal was dismissed.

The Court examined the facts and found that:

◦ The management had the economic control over the subsistence of the workers.

◦ It had control over the utilization of their skill and continued employment.

◦ If the management terminated their business for any reason, the workers would
virtually be laid off.

◦ The Court therefore found that the presence of intermediate contractors had not
material influence when it was clear upon lifting the veil that the real employer with
true control was the management.
◦Integration test
Ram Singh v Union Territory, Chandigarh

◦ In determining the relationship of employer and employee, no doubt 'control' is one

of the important tests but is not to be taken as the sole test. In determining the
relationship of employer and employee all other relevant facts and circumstances are
required to be considered including the terms and conditions of the contract.

◦ An integrated approach is needed. 'Integration' test is one of the relevant tests.

It is applied by examining whether the person was fully integrated into the
employer's concern or remained apart from and independent of it. The
other factors which may be relevant are - who has the power to select and
dismiss, to pay remuneration, deduct insurance contributions, organise the
work, supply tools and materials and what are the 'mutual obligations'
between them.
◦Certain relevant factors
Workmen of Nilgiri v. State of Tamil Nadu

◦ The control test and the organization test, therefore, are not the only factors which
can be said to decisive.

◦ Laid down certain relevant factors: a) who is appointing authority; (b) who is the
pay master; (c) who can dismiss; (d) how long alternative service lasts; e)
the extent of control and supervision; (f) the nature of the job, e.g. whether,
it is professional or skilled work; (g) nature of establishment; (h) the right
to reject.

◦ To find out reasonable solution in a problematic case of this nature, what is needed is
an integrated approach meaning thereby integration of the relevant tests
wherefor it may be necessary to examine as to whether the workman
concerned was fully integrated into the employer's concern meaning thereby
independent of the concern although attached therewith to some extent.
II. Categories of Work and Exceptions
(Organization Test)

◦ There have been two different reasonings adopted by the Supreme Court considering

the work categories:

1. in order to qualify as a workman, the work performed by a person must fall within any

of the categories in the definition.

2. without considering the previous reasoning, provides that if any person does not fall

within the exceptions under the definition, then such person would be considered as a

workman.

◦ Finally, the first reasoning was reaffirmed in H.R. Adyanthaya v Sandoz (India) Ltd

, as the true test to determine whether a person is a workman or not.

 Diwan Mohideen Sahib v. Industrial Tribunal,
Madras AIR 1966 SC 370
◦ Issue: Whether the workmen who work under the independent contractors are the
workmen of the appellants?
◦ Modus operandi with respect to manufacture of bidis in the appellants' concerns:
1) contractors took leaves and tobacco from the appellants and employed workmen for
manufacturing bidis.
2) After bidis were manufactured, the contractors took them back from the workmen and
delivered them to the appellants.
3) The workmen took the leaves home and cut them there; however the process of actual
rolling by filling the leaves with tobacco took place in what were called contractors'
factories.
4) The contractors kept no attendance register for the workmen. There was also no
condition that they should come and go at fixed hours. Nor were the workmen
bound to come for work every day; sometimes the workmen informed the contractors if
they wanted to be absent and sometimes they did not. The contractors however said that
they could take no action if the workmen absented themselves even without leave.
5) The payment was made to the workmen at piece rates. After the bidis were
delivered to the appellants payment was made therefor.
1) The system was that the appellants fixed the price of tobacco and leaves
supplied to the contractors who took them to the places where work of rolling was
done and gave them to the workmen.

2) Next day, the manufactured bidis were taken by the contractors to the
appellants who paid a certain price for the manufactured bidis after
deducting therefrom the cost of the tobacco and the leaves already
fixed. The balance was paid to the contractors who in their turn paid to
the workmen, who rolled bidis, their wages. Whatever remained after
paying the workmen would be the contractors' commission for the work
done.

3) It may also be mentioned that there were written agreements on the same pattern
between the appellants and the contractors in that behalf, though no ,such
agreement has been printed in the paper books.
◦ Appellants contended: there was a sale of leaves and tobacco by the appellants to
contractors and after the bidis were rolled there was a resale of the bidis to the
appellants by the contractors.

◦ The tribunal however held that it was clear that there was no sale either of the raw
materials or of the finished products, for, according to the agreement, if bidis were
not rolled, raw materials had to be returned to the appellants and the
contractors were forbidden from selling the raw materials to any one else.

◦ Further after the bidis were manufactured they could only be delivered to
the appellants who supplied raw materials and not to any one else. Further
price of raw materials fixed by the appellant, as well as the price of the
finished products always remained the same and never fluctuated
according to market rates.

◦ This system was evolved in order to avoid regulations under the Factories Act.
◦ The tribunal also referred to a clause in the agreement that the appellants would have
no concern with the workers who rolled bidis for whom only the contractors would be
responsible. But it was of the view that these provisions were deliberately put into the
agreement by the appellants to escape such statutory duties and obligations, as
may lie on them under the Factories Act or under the Madras Shops and Establishments Act.

◦ Raw materials were supplied by the appellants to be manufactured into finished products by
the workmen and the contractors had no other function except to take the raw
materials to the workmen and gather the manufactured material. It therefore held
that the so-called contractors were not independent contractors and were mere
employees or were functioning as branch managers of various factories, their
remuneration being dependent upon the work turned out.

◦ It therefore came to the conclusion that the bidi workers were the employees of
the appellants and not of the so- called contractors who were themselves nothing
more than employees or branch managers of the appellants.
Writ Petition to High Court:

The learned Single Judge on a review of the terms of the contract and the
evidence on record held that neither the bidi roller nor the
intermediary was an employee of the appellants. In consequence
there could be no industrial dispute within the meaning of s. 2 (k) of the
Industrial Disputes Act between the appellants and the bidi rollers. The
petitions were therefore allowed and the award of the tribunal was set aside.
Appeal Court:

◦ The appeal court on a consideration of the terms of the contract and the findings of
the tribunal came to the conclusion that the so-called contractors were really
the agents of the appellants and that there was no utter lack of control by
the appellants on the bidi workers who actually rolled the bidi.

◦ The appeal court also found that the intermediaries were impecunious and
according to the evidence could hardly afford to have factories of their
own. It also found that the evidence revealed that the appellants took the real hand
in settling all matters relating to the workers, and the intermediary was a mere
cipher and the real control over the workers was that of the appellants.
◦ The appeal court therefore held that the appellants were the real
employers of the workmen and the so-called intermediaries or so-
called independent contractors who were in some cases ex-
employees, were no more than agents of the appellants.

◦ In this view of the matter the appeal court held that the conclusion reached
by the tribunal that the intermediaries were merely branch
managers appointed by the management and the relationship of
employer and employees subsisted between the appellants and
bidi rollers was correct. The appeals were therefore allowed, and the
order of the tribunal was restored.
Supreme Court’s observations:

◦ so-called independent contractors were indigent persons

◦ system has been evolved to avoid regulations under the Factories Act.

◦ the so-called independent contractors have really no independence at all. The

contract is practically one sided in that the proprietor can at his choice supply
the raw materials or refuse to do so, the so-called contractor having no
right to insist upon the supply of raw materials to him.

◦ the so- called independent contractor is supplied with tobacco and leaves
and is paid certain amount for the wages of the workers employed and for
his own trouble.
◦ the so-called contractor is merely an employee or an agent of the appellants as held
by the appeal court and as such employee or agent he employs workers to roll bidis
on behalf of the appellants.

◦ The work is distributed between a number of so-called independent contractors who are
told not to employ more than nine persons at one place to avoid regulations under
the Factories Act.

◦ the workers employed by the so-called contractors are really the workmen of the
appellants who are employed through their agents or servants whom they choose to
call independent contractors.

◦ As the appeal court has pointed out whenever there was a dispute in connection with
the manufacture of bidis the workers looked to the appellants for redress.

◦ the intermediaries were merely branch managers appointed by the management

and the relationship of employers and employees subsisted between the appellants
and the bidi rollers is correct. In this view the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
 Miss A. Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa 1989 (1)
LLJ 61
◦ Industrial dispute before the conciliation officer failed
◦ The officer reported the matter to Government of Goa, Daman & Diu. The
government considered the dispute was not converted into industrial
dispute as per the law.
◦ High Court dismissed the writ petition
◦ Appeal in Supreme Court by special leave

Issues:
◦ Whether the school will be considered an industry or not under the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?
◦ Whether the appellant will be considered a workman or not under the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?
First issue:

◦ In University of Delhi & Anr. v. Ram Nath, Court held that the University of Delhi,
which was an educational institution and Miranda House, a college affiliated to the said
University, also being an educational institution would not come within the definition of
the expression 'industry' as defined in section 2(j) of the Act. Section 2(j) of the Act

◦ The court held that the educational institutions which were predominantly
engaged in teaching could not be considered as industries within the meaning of
the said expression in section 2(j) of the Act and, therefore, a driver who was
employed by the Miranda House could not be considered as a workman
employed in an industry. The above decision came up for consideration in
Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, etc. v. R. Rajappa & others, before
a larger bench of this Court. In that case the decision in
University of Delhi & Anr. v. Ram Nath was overruled.
Second issue:

◦ Where a complex of activities, some of which qualify for exemption, others

not, involves, employees on the total undertaking, some of whom are not
'workmen' as in the University of Delhi case or some departments are not
productive of goods and services if isolated, even then, the predominant
nature of the services and the integrated nature of the departments, will
be true test. The whole undertaking will be 'industry' although those who
are not 'workmen' by definition may not benefit by the status.

◦ If an employee in an industry is not a person engaged in doing work falling in any of

these categories, he would not be a workman at all even though he is employed in
an industry. Whether a teacher in a school falls under any of these categories?
◦ The teachers employed by educational institutions whether the said
institutions are imparting primary, secondary, graduate or post graduate
education cannot be called as 'workmen' within the meaning of section 2(s)
of the Act.

◦ Imparting of education which is the main function of teachers cannot be

considered as skilled or unskilled manual work or supervisory work or
technical work or clerical work. Imparting of education is in the nature of a
mission or a noble vocation.

◦ The clerical work, if any they may do, is only incidental to their principal
work of teaching.
◦It is not possible to accept the suggestion that having regard
to the object of the Act, all employees in an industry except
those falling under the four exceptions (i) to (iv) in section 2(s)
of the Act should be treated as workmen. The acceptance of
this argument will render the words 'to do any skilled or
unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work'
meaningless.

◦This appeal, however, fails and it is dismissed.

 SK Maini v. M/S Carona Sahu Company Ltd.
(1994) 3 SCC 510
◦ Issue: Whether a worker or not under Section 2 (s)-Duties- managerial and administrative

functions, supervising the works of other employees subordinate to him for running the said

shop-salary of more than Rs 500 per month?

◦ The respondent raised a preliminary objection before the Labour Court that the appellant

was not a workman within the definition or s.2(s) or the Industrial Disputes Act,

because being a shop Manager/Incharge of the shop, he had been discharging

mainly managerial and administrative functions and had been supervising the works

of other employees subordinate to him for running the said shop and; even if he was a

Supervisor at the relevant time, as he was drawing a salary more than Rs.500 per

month, he could not be held to be a workman under the Act.

◦ The Labour Court held that though the appellant was a shop Manager/lncharge of
the shop, his duties were mainly clerical and he had no independent
authority to appoint or discharge the employees and to charge-sheet
them; his functions could not be held to be supervisory or managerial. It
held that the appellant was a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, and gave
directions for his reinstatement with full back wages.

◦ The respondent-Company filed a writ petition before the High Court. The Single
Judge held that the predominant duties of the appellant were administrative
or managerial and to some extent supervisory in nature and as such he
was not a workman under s.2(s) of the Act.

◦ Appellant's Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High
Court. Hence the appeal by special leave.
◦ A person is whether or not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is
required to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties and
functions. Such question is required to be determined with reference to the facts and
circumstances of the case and materials on record and it is not possible to lay down
any straitjacket formula which can decide the dispute as to the real nature of duties
and functions being performed by an employee in all cases.

◦ When an employee is employed to do the types of work enumerated in the definition of

workman under Section 2(s), there is hardly any difficulty in treating him as a workman under
the appropriate classification but in the complexity of industrial or commercial organisations
quite a large number of employees are often required to do more than one kind of work. In
such cases, it becomes necessary to determine under which classification the employee
will fall for the purpose of deciding whether he comes within the definition of
workman or goes out of it.

◦ The determinative factor is the main duties of the employee concerned and not
some works incidentally done. In other words, what is, in substance, the work which
employee does or what in substance he is employed to do.
◦ Under the terms and conditions of service, he was asked to take charge of the shop to which his
service was transferred.

◦ Mr Maini, under the terms and conditions of service, was required to be held responsible and
liable for any loss suffered by the Company due to deterioration of the quality of the
stock or any part thereof and loss of any of the other articles lying in the shop caused by
reason of any act of negligence and/or omission to take any precaution by the
employees.

◦ Mr Maini was also required to notify the Company by trunk call and/or telegram not later
than three hours after the discovery in the said shop of any fire, theft, burglary, loot or
arson. He was required to investigate into the matter immediately and get the cause and
amount of loss established by local authorities.

◦ Mr Maini as in- charge of the shop was required to keep and maintain proper accounts as
approved by the Company indicating the exact amount to be paid from the receipts from
the respective staff.

◦ Under Clause XIII of the terms and conditions of the service, Mr Maini would remain fully
responsible to the Company for damages or loss caused by acts or commission of the loss
of the employees of the shop.
◦ Under Clause XV of the terms and conditions of service, the shop in-charge was
required to keep himself fully conversant with all the regulations in force
which may come into force from time to time.

◦ Clause XXI indicates that non- compliance with any of the local or State Acts or
Central Acts would be viewed seriously and Manager would be held
responsible for any fine/penalty imposed and/or prosecution launched
against the Company.

◦ It also appears that in the event of a salesman being absent, the shop in-
charge is empowered to appoint temporary helper for the said period to work
as acting salesman. Similarly, in the event of helper being absent, the shop
manager is also empowered to appoint part-time sweeper and to entrust
the work of a helper to a sweeper.

◦ By virtue of his being in- charge of the shop, he was the principal officer-in-charge
of the management of the shop.
◦ Supreme Court therefore found justification in the finding of the High Court that the principal
function of the appellant was of administrative and managerial nature. It is true that
he himself was also required to do some works of clerical nature but it appears to us
that by and large Shri Maini being incharge of the management of the shop had been
principally discharging the administrative and managerial work.

◦ In the instant case within the authority indicated in the terms and conditions of his service, Shri
Maini was authorised to take decisions in the matter of temporary appointments and
in taking all reasonable steps incidental to the proper running of the shop. Precisely for
the said reason, Shri Maini had signed the statutory forms as an employer.

◦ On a close scrutiny of the nature of duties and functions of the Shop Manager with reference to
the admitted terms and conditions of service of Shri Maini, the High Court was justified in holding
that the appellant was not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act

◦ The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without, however, any order as to cost.