Dear Jagannatha Rao,
For the purposes of section 2-A, Chapters V-A and V-B, the IDA,1947 takes into account only those employees who fall within the ambit of the definition of the term " workman " as defined u/s 2 (s) of the Act.
Even if an engineer is predominantly employed to do a technical nature of work without no one under him to exercise any supervisory control, he would be a ' workman' u/s 2 (s) of the Act, irrespective of his salary or designation.
Appointment with a termination clause of a certain minimum period of notice or notice salary in lieu thereof is in vogue particularly in respect of higher management cadre employees. As per the ratio decidendi of the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v Brojonath Ganguly (1986 SCR(2) 278 ) such a termination clause was held to be unconscionable and opposed to public policy u/s 23 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 and hence held to be void/ voidable. In that case the Supreme Court directed to pay a higher compensation than the notice salary to a DGM (HR) terminated simply without any reason under such notice clause of termination. If such a practice goes unabated, firing of the services of an unwanted employee would be a blissful cakewalk to every employer. Therefore, please remember that such a termination clause though incorporated in the appointment letter and meekly accepted by the concerned employee earlier would crumble to dust in Judicial Scrutiny if it is agitated later.
Coming to your last query, the employee strength in an industrial establishment defined as such in the two Chapters of the IDA,1947 has to be determined only with reference to the no of employees employed in ' workman' category on the rolls. Even, casual, contract labor are not included for the purpose. Out of the total of 69 people in the establishment, only 29 are workmen, i5 falls below the threshold of 50 and therefore the establishment becomes exempted automatically. Here, I take your statistics as it is without any questions.