Can a Manager Earning Over Rs. 18,000 Seek Help from the Labour Commissioner?

Can a person designated as Manager (drawing more than Rs. 18,000/-) seek relief through representation to the Labour Commissioner? Is he qualified to be a 'workman' for grievance redressal through the Labour Commissioner's office?

Thanks in anticipation.

Dear friend, there is no mention in your post about the nature of the individual's employment grievance. Generally, the mere nomenclature of the designation of a job or the amount of salary is not a decisive factor in determining whether the person employed in it is a 'workman', 'supervisor', or 'manager'. On the other hand, it is the principal and predominant nature of duties actually performed by him as per the orders of the employer.

The question of whether a person employed is a workman or not is also an industrial dispute that can only be resolved by adjudication. Therefore, if the grievance is discharge, retrenchment, or dismissal, such a person can approach the conciliation officer first under Section 2-A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and in case of failure, he can approach the Labor Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Act.

Dear Colleague,

Kindly have a perusal of the definition of "Workman" under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947:

2[(s) “workman” means 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, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, 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, but does not include any such person—

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

In general, persons employed mainly in a managerial capacity are excluded from the definition of "Workman." However, they should be a manager in both letter and spirit. Simply designating someone as a manager but engaging them in non-managerial activities will classify them as a workman. In such cases, they can prove that the title "Manager" was only on paper, but they actually worked in clerical or other technical jobs.

In short, if the person is a manager in letter and spirit and truly works as a "Manager," they may not seek relief under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as they will not be deemed a workman. However, they are open to seeking civil relief through the court. Hence, make a suitable decision based on the real practice and factual engagement of the employee as a manager or otherwise.

All the best, God bless,

Dr. P. SIVAKUMAR
Doctor Siva Global HR
Tamil Nadu

Thank you both, Mr. Umakanthan and Dr. Sivakumar. Yes, he was playing the role of a manager and not doing any clerical work. Further, to answer Mr. Umakanthan, the grievance is about dismissal, against which he has approached the Labour Commissioner.

In such a given fact, the Manager cannot seek remedy under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. You can defend your case suitably. However, a civil suit may be raised by the Manager, which kindly take note of.

All the best, God bless,

Regards, Dr. P. Sivakumar

Dear colleague, The issue of whether someone is a workman or a non-workman is to be decided, when contested, by the adjudicating authority on merits under the Industrial Disputes Act/Rules.

Therefore, to opine that the so-called Manager cannot knock the doors of the authorities under the said Act is premature.

Regards, Vinayak Nagarkar HR and Employee Relations Consultant

The detailed information provided by all is appreciated. At the same time, I have a question that needs clarification. Do the employees in charge of the stores, employed and paid under the administrative category, fall under the category of workman or not?

Determining Workman, Supervisor, or Manager Status

The payment does not decide; rather, the job responsibility and nature of work performed in an establishment decide whether the person is a workman, supervisor, or manager.

A peon draws more than Rs. 18,000! Can we consider him a manager?

The Labour Commissioner would decide whether the representation made is acceptable or likely to be rejected. The authority would definitely look into the fact if the person could prove himself as a 'workman' but not a manager just wearing an ornamental designation 'Manager'.

It is true that an attender may have a higher salary than the manager is getting. However, what is relevant are his functional rights and not just the salary. If this individual has the authority to approve leaves for subordinates, initiate disciplinary actions against them, or appraise their performance, then he should be considered a manager. A person with the title of manager but without these rights should only be classified as a workman. There have been some verdicts by the Supreme Court on this matter, but unfortunately, I failed to find the citation.