Dear seniors,
Pls let me know will the following designation be cover in the definition of work man or not......
(1) Accountant
(2) computer operator
(3) sales executive
(4) sales manager
(5) HR manager/executive
(6) Store keeper
(7) driver
(8) sweaper
(9) security guard
(10) senior Accountant,
Please clarify these stated above designation
will cover the defination of workman under industrial disput act. Or not
Thanx & Regard
Sumit Gupta

From India, Basti
Workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act) are defined as employees who have been engaged to do manual, unskilled, skilled, technical work but excludes people who are (a) employed in managerial or administrative capacity; and (b) employed in supervisory capacity if their wages exceed Rs 10,000 per month.

Just calling someone as a manager would not be considered as manager. The nature of his job should prove that he is a manager. For example, he should have some sort of signing authority like, he should be having rights to sign the Gate out pass, inward and outward registers, approving leaves, should have some subordinates, who will be working under his powers. So in the above list You can consider the

(1) Accountant - Can be a workman

(2) computer operator - Can be a workman

(3) sales executive - can be a workman

(4) sales manager - He will be having subordinates to obey his orders - Not a workman

(5) HR manager/executive - He will be having subordinates to obey his orders / signing authority / administrative powers - Not a workman

(6) Store keeper - Can be a workman

(7) driver - a workman

(8) sweaper - a workman

(9) security guard - a workman

(10) senior Accountant - He will be having subordinates / junior accountants to obey his orders / signing authority / administrative powers - Not a workman

Based on the designation i have clarified. Just by the designation, you cannot call him as manager. He should have some powers in practice, which should be proved in the court.

I have attached a judgement copy. Go through it. See how the employer have substantiated their argument and proved a maintenance personnel as manager.

From India, Chennai

Attached Files
File Type: pdf supervisor is not a workmen1.pdf (118.0 KB, 442 views)

Dear Sumit Gupta,

The Industrial Disputes Act under Section 2(s) defines a “Workman” as–

Any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and for the purpose 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 one thousand sic hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by nature of duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.

If we analyse the above definition, we will find two limbs, one affirming who a workman is and the other enlisting who is not a workman from among the four classifications mentioned therein.

For the sake of brevity, let me explain only the second limb of the definition. Of the exhaustive four classifications, the first two are self-explanatory while the other two, in fact, need some introspection to really understand who a workman as per the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 is. In both the parts, the word " capacity" is repeatedly used with the adjectives of managerial, administrative and supervisory to qualify the employment of the excluded category. The word " capacity " here not only means ability but also position, role and duty attributed to the individual's employment. A Manager or an Administrator has at times to do some clerical, manual, technical, supervisory works in the course of his employment but they are incidental only. His main or principal or predominant activity is managing or administering which are, in short, more of thinking functions of managing people than of doing functions. Coming to supervisory position or role, only men need to be supervised and not machines or materials. So, a supervisor is vested with the power of control over the people under his supervision. However, the definition imposes a condition on the exclusion in terms wages received beyond a certain sum i.e Rs.10,000/=p.m. Therefore, even a supervisor is not a workman if his monthly wages or salary exceeds Rs.10,000/=.

By and large, wage or salary or remuneration or designation can not be a criterion to decide who a workman is other than the actual work performed by him viz manual or unskilled or technical or clerical or operational. Only in the case of supervisory work, one ceases to be a workman if his wages exceed the limit of Rs.10,000/=p.m.

Now, in this back-drop, pl analyse the posts you mentioned and arrive at a conclusion.

From India, Salem
Except Sales Manager and HR Manager remaining all cadres will fall under the category of workman under Industrial Disputes Act.
From India, Hyderabad
The wages limit has been increased to 15000/-. Can someone please confirm on this? I am trying to find the notification on this but have not been able to secure / confirm this amount
From India , Mumbai
Dear Neerav, As per my knowledge, wage ceiling for supervisory employees has been increased to Rs.10000-00 p.m only w.e.f 15-09-2010.
From India, Salem
Who are exempted from the definition of workman/ employee under various Acts?

Who are exempted from the definition of workman/ employee under various Acts?

Dear Mr. Rahul Das,
My humble and considered opinion is that the term "employee" is not commonly or interchangeably used in every labor law in the same sense. Therefore, I think everyone of us can go through the definition of the term occurring in any particular Act about which we have a doubt with reference to the main objective of the Act. If one finds any difficulty in his /her own interpretation, of course no harm in asking others.

From India, Salem
What components are included and excluded in the definition of Wages under various Acts?

About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2021 Cite.Co™