Can Managers File Disputes Over Dismissals with Government Bodies? Seeking Clarity

Dispute Resolution for Managerial Employees

Can a dispute be raised by any employee, such as those in the managerial category or above, before government bodies for dismissal, etc.? Please enlighten me on this.

Regards, Madhan S

Dear Madan,

Understanding Employment Contracts

Basically, employment is a contract of civil nature between two parties, namely the employer and the employee. Therefore, it is covered by the law relating to contracts. Thus, any difference or dispute between the employer and the employee regarding any terms and conditions of service contained in the contract of employment is a civil dispute only cognizable by a civil court.

Classification of Employees Under Indian Labor Laws

Indian labor laws generally classify employees into two major groups: workmen and supervisory/managerial cadre employees. Of these two groups, only an employee belonging to the cadre of workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, has the right to raise a dispute under the Act against his employer on his discharge, dismissal, or retrenchment, which would be finally adjudicated by a labor court constituted under the Act.

Therefore, any employee belonging to the managerial cadre cannot raise any dispute under the ID Act, 1947, for his employment grievances, including dismissal. However, mere designation cannot be a determinant for deciding the question. The nature of duties attached to the post alone can determine whether one is a workman or otherwise.

Thank you for the clarification. Can you also please tell me what nature of duty refrains him from raising the dispute? Does the salary limit of the concerned play a vital role in deciding this?

Regards, Madhan S

Dear Madan,

A definition is a precise indication of certain basic and predominant features of the subject which is defined. The exact meaning of the definition should always be culled out from the main objective of the particular law wherein the term is defined, and thus it cannot be a mere generalization based on the language used.

Analyzing the term 'workman' under the IDA, 1947

If we analyze the term 'workman' as defined under section 2(s) of the IDA, 1947 in this backdrop, we should bear in mind that whatever conclusive interpretation of the term we arrive at, it should be with reference to the purpose of the Act, which is the prevention, investigation, and peaceful and early resolution of industrial disputes involving employment grievances of a certain section of hired employees in the cadre of workman and not all. That's why the definition under section 2(s) comprises three distinct parts, namely:

(1) the inclusive part
(2) the exclusive part
(3) the exemption part

The Inclusive Part

The inclusive part deals with the nature of work that can be manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory. In short, the terms used here reflect the repetitive nature of the job without the freedom to use one's own imagination or independent judgment in its normal execution.

The Exclusive Part

The exclusive part operates primarily on the capacity of employment, namely managerial, administrative, or supervisory. Only supervisory capacity is qualified with a monthly salary exceeding a certain limit. In terms of managerial or administrative capacity, salary is not a defining criterion. These two terms carry with them the inherent power of situational decision-making, control, vertical and horizontal communications, entering into contracts with the world at large on behalf of the organization, the power to sue and be sued, accountability, power to hire or fire, and the like. It is not necessary that a manager should possess all the powers mentioned above due to the phenomenon of specialization in modern management systems.

As the third part is self-explanatory, I prefer to leave it out.

Finally, to be a 'workman,' one has to prove that his nature of work falls essentially within the aspects mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition.

Therefore, my final answer to your query is that salary is not a criterion for a workman or manager.