Summary
The Supreme Court held that an Assistant Engineer in a newspaper establishment, who admittedly supervised two junior engineers and drew more than Rs. 1,600 a month when his services ended in 2003, was not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The definition as it stood on the date of termination applied, not the Rs. 10,000 ceiling introduced in 2010. Since his termination on one month's salary in lieu of notice complied with his appointment terms, the Labour Court's reinstatement award could not stand.
Issues
- Whether the employee, employed as Assistant Engineer (E&C) and supervising two junior engineers, was a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the wage ceiling for supervisory employees was to be applied as it stood on the date of termination (Rs. 1,600) or as amended in 2010 (Rs. 10,000).
- Whether the termination of the employee by paying one month's salary in lieu of notice was illegal, entitling him to reinstatement and compensation in lieu of back wages.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(s), sub-clause (iv), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The Court held that workman status depends on the principal duties performed, not designation, and that the employee claiming it must prove it. On the evidence, including his own admission, he did supervisory work, and under the pre-2010 definition applicable on his termination on 08.10.2003 a supervisor drawing more than Rs. 1,600 a month was excluded. He was therefore not a workman. (¶¶ 11, 15, 16)
- Sections 25F, 25G and 25H, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Since the employee was not a workman, the Act did not apply, and his arguments based on non-compliance with these provisions and on reinstatement with back wages as the normal rule could not be accepted. (¶ 17)
Held
- Whether a person is a 'workman' under Section 2(s) depends on the principal duties and functions performed in the establishment, not merely the designation of the post, and the burden of proving the nature of employment lies on the person claiming to be a workman. (¶ 15)
- In the absence of any document showing the actual work performed, the appointment and promotion orders placing the employee on the administrative side were relevant. Both the management witness and the employee in cross-examination accepted that he supervised two junior engineers, so his duties were supervisory. (¶¶ 14, 16)
- Applying Section 2(s) as it stood before the 2010 amendment, since he was terminated on 08.10.2003 while drawing more than Rs. 1,600 a month in a supervisory capacity, the employee fell outside the definition of workman. The High Court erred in upholding the Labour Court's contrary finding under the amended provision. (¶¶ 7, 11, 16)
- Clause 14 of the appointment order permitted termination after confirmation by one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu, and those terms continued after promotion. The employee accepted and encashed the cheque for one month's salary without objection, so there was no procedural violation, and the reinstatement and compensation awarded by the Labour Court were rightly set aside. (¶¶ 13, 17, 18)
Result
The employee's appeal (C.A. No. 11709 of 2024) was dismissed and the management's appeal (C.A. No. 11710 of 2024) allowed. The High Court's affirmation of the finding that the employee was a workman was set aside, and its setting aside of the reinstatement and Rs. 75,000 compensation was affirmed. No order as to costs.