How to Prove a Senior Staff Member Isn't a Workman in Labor Court Disputes?

My name is Prakash, and I am an HR manager. As per labor law, workmen refer to individuals up to the engineer level and clerical staff. However, when companies hire these individuals as part of their workforce, we issue appointment letters designating them as staff. These letters contain clauses regarding termination, transfer, and notice periods.

In situations where staff members exhibit problematic behavior, attitude, or lack of discipline that affects the company, the company may decide to dismiss them. If the staff does not respond appropriately, the company issues a termination letter.

In a scenario where a staff member takes the matter to the labor court claiming to be a workman despite being treated as staff by the company and holding a senior position where they instruct and supervise junior staff, the question arises on how to prove that the individual is not a workman. If we present the relevant documents, will the court accept them as evidence?

What you have raised is a very basic question about who a workman is. The right answer does not come from the designation of the post held by an employee nor from the amount of monetary compensation payable, but strictly from the predominant nature of duties and responsibilities attached to it. Even a professional like a doctor or engineer can be a workman, even though they are classified into a category known as "staff" for the purpose of distinguishing them from the blue-collar employee usually referred to as a "workman."

So, I would like to suggest you go through Sec.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and take some time to understand it with an open mind rather than getting confused with certain colloquial terms like staff, clerical staff, etc.