Dear Pansingh,
If you analyse the entire scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 together with the amendments carried out to its sections 2(s) defining the term ' workman ' and section 2-A enabling an individual workman to raise an industrial dispute himself against his discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or non-employment at the behest of his employer, I think such a right is available to only an employed person who fully satisfies the definition clause in its entirety.
If we scan the definition of the term ' workman ' which I do hope you would be doing side by side while reading this post, we will understand that the definition can be divided into three parts for the sake of our objective and flawless comprehension viz.,
- the first part which asserts who a workman is BY INCLUSION with reference to the nature of work for which he is hired without any mention about the amount of wages/salary received for the work,
- the second part which specifically states who is not a workman BY EXEMPTION with reference to the predominant capacity of his employment namely supervisory with a salary beyond a certain amount and managerial or administrative irrespective of the quantum of salary paid for the job and
- the third part specifies who is not a workman by a clear-cut EXCLUSION based on the specific nature of his service.
If we understand the implications of these exemption and the exclusion, we can conclude only a workman can seek remedy under the provisions of the IDA against his non-employment of whatever nature as a result of his employer's action.
Your next question about the remedy to the other persons is, in fact, a valid one and the answer lies certainly only somewhere outside the IDA,1947. In the case of the exempted category, remedy lies under the Indian Contract Act,1872 for employment is basically a contract only and any breach of the terms and conditions of the contract would lead to a civil suit and claim for damages by the aggrieved party. Even in such a case against the discharge of a manager as per the terms of the contract of employment { Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojonath Ganguly [1986 SCR(2) 278] } the Supreme Court held that such an unconscionable clause in the circumstances of the case was against public policy u/s 23 of the Indian Contract Act,1872.
Similarly, the excluded employees have their remedy under their service regulations framed under article 311 of the Constitution of India.
I appreciate your presumption about the application of the principles of natural justice in every action including dismissal or discharge detrimental to the interests of any person employed. In such litigations, the judiciary would certainly set aside the action of the employer as illegal if there is violation of the principles of natural justice by the employer while passing the impugned orders.
Our learned friend KK!HR has correctly answered about the nature of remedy in such cases. For your information, I remember to have read very long back somewhere a judgment rendered by the honorable Supreme Court of India lambasting the employer who refused constantly to reinstate a dismissed employee on the alleged criminal charge of murdering his colleague within the zone of employment which was later acquitted by the trial court on the benefit of doubt but concluding at last that the Court cannot compel an unwilling employer to reinstate an unwanted employee and finally awarded a hefty sum of compensation to the ex-employee with costs.