Are These Job Roles Considered 'Workman' Under the Industrial Disputes Act? Seeking Clarity

Dear seniors,

Please let me know if the following designations will be covered in the definition of a workman or not:

1) Accountant
2) Computer operator
3) Sales executive
4) Sales manager
5) HR manager/executive
6) Storekeeper
7) Driver
8) Sweeper
9) Security guard
10) Senior Accountant

Please clarify if the above-mentioned designations will be covered by the definition of a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Thank you & Regards,
Sumit Gupta

Definition of Workmen Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

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

Just calling someone a manager would not make them a manager. The nature of their job should prove that they are a manager. For example, they should have some sort of signing authority, like the right to sign the gate-out pass, inward and outward registers, approve leaves, and have subordinates working under their authority.

Clarification on Designations

Based on the designation, I have clarified the following:

(1) Accountant - Can be a workman
(2) Computer operator - Can be a workman
(3) Sales executive - Can be a workman
(4) Sales manager - Will have subordinates to obey orders - Not a workman
(5) HR manager/executive - Will have subordinates to obey orders, signing authority, and administrative powers - Not a workman
(6) Storekeeper - Can be a workman
(7) Driver - A workman
(8) Sweeper - A workman
(9) Security guard - A workman
(10) Senior Accountant - Will have subordinates/junior accountants to obey orders, signing authority, and administrative powers - Not a workman

Just by designation, you cannot call someone a manager. They should have some powers in practice, which should be proven in court.

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

Regards,
[Username Removed For Privacy Reasons]

Definition of a Workman Under the Industrial Disputes Act

The Industrial Disputes Act, under Section 2(s), defines a "Workman" as:

Any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to perform manual, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment are expressed or implied. For the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, it 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. However, it does not include any such person:

(i) Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), 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 six hundred rupees per month or exercises, either by the nature of duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.

If we analyze the above definition, we find two limbs: one affirming who a workman is and the other enlisting who is not a workman 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 require some introspection to truly understand who a workman, as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is. In both parts, the word "capacity" is repeatedly used with the adjectives 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 sometimes has to perform clerical, manual, technical, or supervisory tasks in the course of employment, but these are incidental only. His main or principal activity is managing or administering, which are, in short, more about thinking functions of managing people than doing functions. Regarding the supervisory position or role, only people need to be supervised, not machines or materials. Thus, 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 of wages received beyond a certain sum, i.e., Rs.10,000/= per month. Therefore, even a supervisor is not a workman if his monthly wages or salary exceeds Rs.10,000/=.

By and large, wage, salary, remuneration, or designation cannot be a criterion to decide who a workman is, other than the actual work performed by him, such as manual, unskilled, technical, clerical, or operational tasks. Only in the case of supervisory work does one cease to be a workman if his wages exceed the limit of Rs.10,000/= per month.

Now, in this backdrop, please analyze the posts you mentioned and arrive at a conclusion.

Regards

Except the Sales Manager and HR Manager, all other cadres will fall under the category of workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Who is 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, there is no harm in asking others.