Please can any one let me know the professional skills employees like (Advocates, Doctors, chartered accountant and other professional) whether cover under the industrial Disputes Act 1947
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
46From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
They are not coming under ID Act.But a hospital comes under it as an Industry.There is a recent decision that an Architect firm is a shop for ESI Act. Varghese Mathew.
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello, Mr. Kartik.
Provisions of the ID Act are applicable to all employees who fall under the definition of "Workman" as per the ID Act. Therefore, Doctors, Advocates, and CAs shall not be classified as workmen, whereas Accountants, Pharmacists/paramedical staff, Legal Inspectors, etc., shall be considered workmen. In general, Executives are not considered workmen, while Non-executives, including Supervisors, are classified as workmen.
AK Jain
From India, New+Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Provisions of the ID Act are applicable to all employees who fall under the definition of "Workman" as per the ID Act. Therefore, Doctors, Advocates, and CAs shall not be classified as workmen, whereas Accountants, Pharmacists/paramedical staff, Legal Inspectors, etc., shall be considered workmen. In general, Executives are not considered workmen, while Non-executives, including Supervisors, are classified as workmen.
AK Jain
From India, New+Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sorry to differ from the views of M/S Vargheese and Arun. The essential condition of a person being a workman within the terms of the definition under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947 is that he should be employed to do the work in that industry and that there should be an employment of him by the employer involving the relationship of employer and employee. Where the relationship of employer and employee in an industry is established, the person employed is deemed to be a workman unless found specifically excluded. Of the four exclusions mentioned in the definition, the last two are relevant to the present discussion; they are managers or administrators irrespective of the amount of their wages or salaries and those supervisors with wages exceeding Rs1600/= p.m or exercise functions of mainly managerial nature in terms of the nature of their duties or by reason of powers. Here, the emphasis is on the capacity of jobs assigned to them and not on the mere nomenclature or designation of the job.
The Supreme Court has ruled in S.K.Verma v. Mahesh Chandra [AIR 1984 S.C 1462] that the entire labor force, irrespective of the nature and duties of the post, falls within the definition of the word 'workman' and only the managerial force and the supervisory force to the extent excepted in the definition stand excluded from the definition. The decision of the Supreme Court in Burma Shell's case [1970 (2) LLJ. 590] is to be applied to ascertain whether a person employed in a particular job would be a workman or not. If we analyze the cases of professionally qualified persons such as Doctors, C.As, Lawyers and the like employed in an industry in the light of the above and such other Judicial decisions, we would be able to determine whether they are workmen or not. For this, the following observation of the Supreme Court in Arkal Govindaraj Rao v. CIBA Geigy of India Ltd., Bombay [1985 LIC 1008] would be helpful: "... The test that one must employ in such a case is what was the primary, basic or dominant nature of duties for which the person whose status under enquiry was employed. A few extra duties would hardly be relevant to determine his status. The words like managerial or supervisory have to be understood in their proper connotation and their mere use should not detract from the truth."
Following the above decisions and Ved Prakash Gopta v. Dalton Cable India (P) Ltd. (1984 LIC. 658) the High Court held that the duties of the Asst. Medical Officer employed by the Railway to treat the patients who are employees of the Railways and their families are technical and that any supervisory functions such doctor may exercise are incidental to the discharge of his duties as a Medical Attendant of the Railway employees and their families [Dr. Surendra Kumar Shukla v. Union of India and others - 1986 LIC. 1516]
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Supreme Court has ruled in S.K.Verma v. Mahesh Chandra [AIR 1984 S.C 1462] that the entire labor force, irrespective of the nature and duties of the post, falls within the definition of the word 'workman' and only the managerial force and the supervisory force to the extent excepted in the definition stand excluded from the definition. The decision of the Supreme Court in Burma Shell's case [1970 (2) LLJ. 590] is to be applied to ascertain whether a person employed in a particular job would be a workman or not. If we analyze the cases of professionally qualified persons such as Doctors, C.As, Lawyers and the like employed in an industry in the light of the above and such other Judicial decisions, we would be able to determine whether they are workmen or not. For this, the following observation of the Supreme Court in Arkal Govindaraj Rao v. CIBA Geigy of India Ltd., Bombay [1985 LIC 1008] would be helpful: "... The test that one must employ in such a case is what was the primary, basic or dominant nature of duties for which the person whose status under enquiry was employed. A few extra duties would hardly be relevant to determine his status. The words like managerial or supervisory have to be understood in their proper connotation and their mere use should not detract from the truth."
Following the above decisions and Ved Prakash Gopta v. Dalton Cable India (P) Ltd. (1984 LIC. 658) the High Court held that the duties of the Asst. Medical Officer employed by the Railway to treat the patients who are employees of the Railways and their families are technical and that any supervisory functions such doctor may exercise are incidental to the discharge of his duties as a Medical Attendant of the Railway employees and their families [Dr. Surendra Kumar Shukla v. Union of India and others - 1986 LIC. 1516]
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Whether para medical staff are coming under workman category as pr industrial dispute act
From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Join Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Industrial Employment Standing Oder Act.doc