My duties are to assist the chief engineer to carried out his duties, i have to look after sugar plant machinary and mantainance i have no power to sanction leave, no power to write confidantion report of engineering dept. employee . I have to work as directed by chief engineer and deputy chief engineer. Ours is co operative sugar factories elected directors appointed managing director and to assist managing director HOD such as chief engineer is appointed.
appex court judgement where engginer, assi. engginer held as a worker
From India, Kolhapur
appex court judgement where engginer, assi. engginer held as a worker
From India, Kolhapur
Dear Suhaspatil,
Concepts change from time to time. Very long back, management was synonymous with ownership. With the emergence of Joint-stock Companies ownership was separated from management. The powers of the single manager got diluted after the emergence of specialisation in or professionalisation of the different aspects of management. Despite such changes what remain intact are the aspects of control and supervision in any activity of human endeavour which requires the involvement of more than a single person in its accomplishment. Therefore, the absence of certain managerial powers can not determine the nature of one's employment. Whether one has the power to control or supervise the work of others below him can be the ultimate test in this regard and not his designation or salary. The application of the ratio decidendi of a judgment in a particular case can not be straight away applied to all cases; contextual dissimilarities can demand a departure. As an Asst.Engineer in the Maintenance wing or department of the Factory, you will attend to break-downs and lubrication of machineries not alone but with the team of fitters, mechanics,oilers etc. In your presence on the spot repairs are carried out. Thus, you become the supervisor of the entire operations. So, in my opinion you can not be treated as a workman or a mere technician.
From India, Salem
6016Concepts change from time to time. Very long back, management was synonymous with ownership. With the emergence of Joint-stock Companies ownership was separated from management. The powers of the single manager got diluted after the emergence of specialisation in or professionalisation of the different aspects of management. Despite such changes what remain intact are the aspects of control and supervision in any activity of human endeavour which requires the involvement of more than a single person in its accomplishment. Therefore, the absence of certain managerial powers can not determine the nature of one's employment. Whether one has the power to control or supervise the work of others below him can be the ultimate test in this regard and not his designation or salary. The application of the ratio decidendi of a judgment in a particular case can not be straight away applied to all cases; contextual dissimilarities can demand a departure. As an Asst.Engineer in the Maintenance wing or department of the Factory, you will attend to break-downs and lubrication of machineries not alone but with the team of fitters, mechanics,oilers etc. In your presence on the spot repairs are carried out. Thus, you become the supervisor of the entire operations. So, in my opinion you can not be treated as a workman or a mere technician.
From India, Salem
Hi Dear,
Although our senior fraternity Mr Umakanthan has rightly explained above that a person performing a nature of duty in a scenario given cannot be correlated with an another person delivering same set of duties elsewhere as the situation and conditions may be different. Section 2 s of the industrial dispute act remains a controversial subject to decide who is a workman and who is not. A workman enjoys certain job security granted by the section under the so mention I D act and employer always try to claim the person as not a workman whenever things goes wrong. However as you have mentioned that you do not enjoy any supervisory powers given in written and do not have rights for making duty rosters, preparing any confidential reports and also cannot give any week off, leaves etc, so in my opinion who are covered under the definition of workman.
Rest an employee also claim himself as workman whenever a dispute arises. So the competent authority whom the case goes decides in such cases whether the person is a workman or not.
From India, New Delhi
Although our senior fraternity Mr Umakanthan has rightly explained above that a person performing a nature of duty in a scenario given cannot be correlated with an another person delivering same set of duties elsewhere as the situation and conditions may be different. Section 2 s of the industrial dispute act remains a controversial subject to decide who is a workman and who is not. A workman enjoys certain job security granted by the section under the so mention I D act and employer always try to claim the person as not a workman whenever things goes wrong. However as you have mentioned that you do not enjoy any supervisory powers given in written and do not have rights for making duty rosters, preparing any confidential reports and also cannot give any week off, leaves etc, so in my opinion who are covered under the definition of workman.
Rest an employee also claim himself as workman whenever a dispute arises. So the competent authority whom the case goes decides in such cases whether the person is a workman or not.
From India, New Delhi
Why do you ask this is not understood? You need to understand as per the explanation of Mr Umakanthan. or
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act"), the courts have enlarged the scope and applicability of this Act by giving wide interpretation to the term "workman.
The" Section 2(s) defines workman as 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, terms of employment be express or implied and includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of dispute. [It excludes persons employed in army/Navy/Air Force/Police and those employed in mainly managerial or administrative, supervisory capacity and drawing wages ............................].
The different different Courts have interpreted this definition and have identified various determining factors to know whether a person is "workman" or not. Over a period of time, courts have interpreted specific points of contention in the definition under the ID Act which has enlarged the scope of the legislation. There is Nothing clear it is vary from case to case and court to court...................even different orders of the Apex Court.
From India, Mumbai
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act"), the courts have enlarged the scope and applicability of this Act by giving wide interpretation to the term "workman.
The" Section 2(s) defines workman as 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, terms of employment be express or implied and includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of dispute. [It excludes persons employed in army/Navy/Air Force/Police and those employed in mainly managerial or administrative, supervisory capacity and drawing wages ............................].
The different different Courts have interpreted this definition and have identified various determining factors to know whether a person is "workman" or not. Over a period of time, courts have interpreted specific points of contention in the definition under the ID Act which has enlarged the scope of the legislation. There is Nothing clear it is vary from case to case and court to court...................even different orders of the Apex Court.
From India, Mumbai
Dear Suhas,
Mr Natharao has brought out aptly legal nuances bearing your case
.
At the same time, considering the fact stated by you that you dont direct/supervise anybody's work, do not have powers to appprase performance or grant leave, in my view, you have greater chance of being treated as workman under the provisions of the I D Act.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR-Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Mr Natharao has brought out aptly legal nuances bearing your case
.
At the same time, considering the fact stated by you that you dont direct/supervise anybody's work, do not have powers to appprase performance or grant leave, in my view, you have greater chance of being treated as workman under the provisions of the I D Act.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR-Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Working with communities.ppt
Occupational Safety, Health & Working Conditions Code 2019.pdf
How To Get The Best Out Of Working For A Bad Boss.doc