Could anyone please tell me the legal difference worker,workman and employee in india?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
4From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
Interesting!
An "employee" can be either a "worker" or a "workman"! A "worker" may be a "workman" or an "employee"!! A "workman" may be an "employee" or a "worker"!!!
But, fun apart, these terms have relevance and significance only in terms of the specific meaning attached to each of them by way of a "definition" for a particular law. For example, "employee" is a general reference to anyone employed as provided in different acts and, outside of the acts, has no particular significance beyond that. "Worker" is defined under the Factories Act and includes virtually everyone who enters the factory premises. "Workman" is defined under the Industrial Disputes Act and has specific importance for labor legislation.
So, depending upon the issue at hand, one will have to look into the concerned laws to learn about the rights and obligations of the individual in question. If you have a focused query, kindly raise the same for better treatment.
Regards,
Samvedan
November 24, 2006
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(4)
Amend(0)
Interesting!
An "employee" can be either a "worker" or a "workman"! A "worker" may be a "workman" or an "employee"!! A "workman" may be an "employee" or a "worker"!!!
But, fun apart, these terms have relevance and significance only in terms of the specific meaning attached to each of them by way of a "definition" for a particular law. For example, "employee" is a general reference to anyone employed as provided in different acts and, outside of the acts, has no particular significance beyond that. "Worker" is defined under the Factories Act and includes virtually everyone who enters the factory premises. "Workman" is defined under the Industrial Disputes Act and has specific importance for labor legislation.
So, depending upon the issue at hand, one will have to look into the concerned laws to learn about the rights and obligations of the individual in question. If you have a focused query, kindly raise the same for better treatment.
Regards,
Samvedan
November 24, 2006
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(4)Amend(0)
Thank you, Samvedan! Yes, I need the answer in a particular reference.
1) Which are the sets of laws that define a worker, workman, and employee or use them for their respective meanings?
2) Why are there 3 different terms used by these acts? What is the logic behind the same? For instance, as you rightly said, a worker is a broad term and will include even an officer in its scope (and a separate exemption has to be sought under Section 64 of the Factories Act). Whereas in the ID Act, it refers only to a certain class of people demarcated based on their salary, and employee, on the other hand, is referred to in the PF Act. So, why is it that these acts have different definitions when they more or less refer to the same set of people? Please do give your inputs on the same.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
1) Which are the sets of laws that define a worker, workman, and employee or use them for their respective meanings?
2) Why are there 3 different terms used by these acts? What is the logic behind the same? For instance, as you rightly said, a worker is a broad term and will include even an officer in its scope (and a separate exemption has to be sought under Section 64 of the Factories Act). Whereas in the ID Act, it refers only to a certain class of people demarcated based on their salary, and employee, on the other hand, is referred to in the PF Act. So, why is it that these acts have different definitions when they more or less refer to the same set of people? Please do give your inputs on the same.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Hi,
A comprehensive answer to your question is going to be very complicated. Suffice it to say that:
1) Each law passed by the parliament has specific and defined "aims and objectives" that indicate the purpose of enacting the legislation.
2) Broadly speaking, while the Industrial Disputes Act is a disputes processing/settlement legislation, the Factories Act is a normative establishment legislation that provides standards for safety, health, and similar matters affecting working conditions for people employed in factories. Therefore, it is not as though if you are in the managerial cadre, you have fewer hazards to your safety. So all those employed at the factory (barring small exceptions as rightly pointed out by you) are given the same consideration in matters provided under the Factories Act. Here the question is NOT about status, salary, or designation.
3) But in matters of processing disputes, the lawmakers have presumed (I wonder if rightly) that people of higher status or higher salary either have no disputes or are capable of resolving their disputes themselves. It is for this reason the term "workman" is chosen and defined to indicate that class of employees who have more rights and protection than others as far as this act is considered.
4) It is a safe approach that while dealing with any matter, one checks the provisions and the definitions before taking any positions.
5) It is possible, but at least I have NOT found it necessary to list out various acts defining terms like "employee," "worker," and "workman." To that extent, I am unable to help straight away on this issue.
Regards,
Samvedan
November 24, 2006
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(7)
Amend(0)
A comprehensive answer to your question is going to be very complicated. Suffice it to say that:
1) Each law passed by the parliament has specific and defined "aims and objectives" that indicate the purpose of enacting the legislation.
2) Broadly speaking, while the Industrial Disputes Act is a disputes processing/settlement legislation, the Factories Act is a normative establishment legislation that provides standards for safety, health, and similar matters affecting working conditions for people employed in factories. Therefore, it is not as though if you are in the managerial cadre, you have fewer hazards to your safety. So all those employed at the factory (barring small exceptions as rightly pointed out by you) are given the same consideration in matters provided under the Factories Act. Here the question is NOT about status, salary, or designation.
3) But in matters of processing disputes, the lawmakers have presumed (I wonder if rightly) that people of higher status or higher salary either have no disputes or are capable of resolving their disputes themselves. It is for this reason the term "workman" is chosen and defined to indicate that class of employees who have more rights and protection than others as far as this act is considered.
4) It is a safe approach that while dealing with any matter, one checks the provisions and the definitions before taking any positions.
5) It is possible, but at least I have NOT found it necessary to list out various acts defining terms like "employee," "worker," and "workman." To that extent, I am unable to help straight away on this issue.
Regards,
Samvedan
November 24, 2006
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(7)+2 more
Amend(0)
Thank you so much, Samvedan. You are really becoming my godfather in ER and legal-related queries. For now, your answer makes sense, but I will get back to you as and when I have more doubts. Thank you once again.
Regards,
Pali Tripathi
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regards,
Pali Tripathi
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear,
There is no difference. Generally, white-collar workers are referred to as employees, and blue-collar workers are known as workmen. However, in legal terms, there are distinct definitions of workmen/workers and employees under various Labor Acts such as the ID Act, ESI Act, Payment of Bonus Act, PF Act, Payment of Gratuity Act, Payment of Wages Act, and Payment of Minimum Wages Act, etc.
- Ak Malhotra
From India, Guwahati
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
There is no difference. Generally, white-collar workers are referred to as employees, and blue-collar workers are known as workmen. However, in legal terms, there are distinct definitions of workmen/workers and employees under various Labor Acts such as the ID Act, ESI Act, Payment of Bonus Act, PF Act, Payment of Gratuity Act, Payment of Wages Act, and Payment of Minimum Wages Act, etc.
- Ak Malhotra
From India, Guwahati
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I want to comment on this submission given by Mr. SomVedan, Senior Member,
But in matters of processing disputes, the lawmakers have presumed (I wonder if rightly) that people of higher status or higher salary either have no disputes or are capable of resolving their disputes themselves. It is for this reason the term "workman" is chosen and defined to indicate that class of employees who have more rights and protection than others as far as this act is considered.
My comments:
The ID Act definition of workman has been evolved by the legislators in the right spirit.
The Management of a company means not just the Directors; it includes all the Managerial people above the Supervisory cadre.
If these Managers and Supervisors are given the same status of workmen, everyone will have the highly protective legal shield. And there won't be anybody to take care of the Management of the company, except the directors.
Hence, in the right spirit, it has been enacted. It is well agreed that the Managers and the Supervisors do have issues and disputes. If there are some unresolved disputes and their rights are infringed, they can very well approach the Civil court through Rule 9 of the CPC.
P. Nalluchamy
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
But in matters of processing disputes, the lawmakers have presumed (I wonder if rightly) that people of higher status or higher salary either have no disputes or are capable of resolving their disputes themselves. It is for this reason the term "workman" is chosen and defined to indicate that class of employees who have more rights and protection than others as far as this act is considered.
My comments:
The ID Act definition of workman has been evolved by the legislators in the right spirit.
The Management of a company means not just the Directors; it includes all the Managerial people above the Supervisory cadre.
If these Managers and Supervisors are given the same status of workmen, everyone will have the highly protective legal shield. And there won't be anybody to take care of the Management of the company, except the directors.
Hence, in the right spirit, it has been enacted. It is well agreed that the Managers and the Supervisors do have issues and disputes. If there are some unresolved disputes and their rights are infringed, they can very well approach the Civil court through Rule 9 of the CPC.
P. Nalluchamy
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Legaly there is no difference between workmen and woker, it may be a simple terminolgy of the management, but if legaly seen it is just like a question " Who was born/created first Hen or Egg ?"
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
sir, I have some doubts. 1. Who all are comes under "Worker / Workman" as per Factories Act,1948. 2. Is HR Manager, Finance Manager comes under "Worker / Workman" category. Thanks T.S.Krishna Prasath
From Australia, Revesby
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From Australia, Revesby
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Seniors, Sorry I am not able to understand the three terminology in worker, employee and workmen. You are requested to please refer as per Factory Act. 1948. with Oblige, Tarsem Singh
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
An interesting question followed by an enchanting debate! If I remember correctly, once Mark Twain observed, "the difference between an 'exactly right word' and 'the right word' is very vast like the difference between 'lightning' and 'the lightning bug'." This is convincingly true because etymological interpretations change not only based on linguistics but also on anthropology.
Of course, Pali Tripathy's initial query revolves around the practical difference between the terms 'workman' and 'employee' in the legal context, and the brilliant answers given by people like Samvedan and Nalluchamy bring out the contextual and purposive differences in the different legislations employing either the word 'employee' or 'workman'. The recent renaming of the erstwhile "Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923" as "The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923" is in tune with the reasons cited by the above two gentlemen by not only replacing the word 'workman' wherever it occurred but also expanding its connotation by the deletions therein through the amending Act.
However, the still-persistent confusion in the minds of friends like Krishna Prasath and Tarsem Singh holds the quote of Mark Twain good, I think. So, let me try to explain the difference between the two terms that can be used interchangeably in a general context and the reasons for it from the angle of human relations.
In the early stages of social living, hard work was shared by all according to everyone's physical strength. Eventually, the stronger emerged as the leader of the group. The invention of agriculture paved the way for the formation of feudalism from nomadism. This resulted in the enslavement of the landless labor by the landed gentry. Thus came into existence a system of external or social human relationship called Master and Slave/Serf. Its negative impact caused its modification of the relationship to that of Master/Owner and Servant.
The Industrial Revolution triggered by the advancement in science and technology metamorphosed into large-scale manufacturing/production, which eventually culminated in the formation of giant industrial corporations or joint-stock companies to augment huge financial investments. The simultaneous problems associated with such growth like effective utilization of the factors of production and large-scale employment of people under a single roof opened the gates for a new system called management. The harnessing of complicated multitudinal tasks rendered the system of management all the more complex, which eventually resulted in the separation of ownership from management.
Therefore, the owner need not be the master now. Since their relationship is strictly confined to the terms of employment or the contract of service, the master has become the employer and the servant has become the person employed or employee. In a way, all the persons employed for hire or reward are employees. Therefore, 'employee' is a generic term indicative of the factum of being employed for hire.
However, certain distinguishable authority-oriented features like the enabling powers of representation, hire and fire, supervision, control over the lower rungs of hierarchy call for distinction among the employees. Hence the species of Managers, Supervisors, and Workmen or Workers. Thus, in the pyramidal structure of employment, Managers occupy the highest position, the supervisors the middle, and the workmen are at the bottom.
Since the objective of a Welfare State is social justice to all its citizens and particularly those at the bottom are more, their problems have to be addressed and redressed through appropriate labor legislations. Hence the employment of different terms such as workman/worker, employee, person employed, etc., depending upon the species to be protected by the respective employment legislations.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Of course, Pali Tripathy's initial query revolves around the practical difference between the terms 'workman' and 'employee' in the legal context, and the brilliant answers given by people like Samvedan and Nalluchamy bring out the contextual and purposive differences in the different legislations employing either the word 'employee' or 'workman'. The recent renaming of the erstwhile "Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923" as "The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923" is in tune with the reasons cited by the above two gentlemen by not only replacing the word 'workman' wherever it occurred but also expanding its connotation by the deletions therein through the amending Act.
However, the still-persistent confusion in the minds of friends like Krishna Prasath and Tarsem Singh holds the quote of Mark Twain good, I think. So, let me try to explain the difference between the two terms that can be used interchangeably in a general context and the reasons for it from the angle of human relations.
In the early stages of social living, hard work was shared by all according to everyone's physical strength. Eventually, the stronger emerged as the leader of the group. The invention of agriculture paved the way for the formation of feudalism from nomadism. This resulted in the enslavement of the landless labor by the landed gentry. Thus came into existence a system of external or social human relationship called Master and Slave/Serf. Its negative impact caused its modification of the relationship to that of Master/Owner and Servant.
The Industrial Revolution triggered by the advancement in science and technology metamorphosed into large-scale manufacturing/production, which eventually culminated in the formation of giant industrial corporations or joint-stock companies to augment huge financial investments. The simultaneous problems associated with such growth like effective utilization of the factors of production and large-scale employment of people under a single roof opened the gates for a new system called management. The harnessing of complicated multitudinal tasks rendered the system of management all the more complex, which eventually resulted in the separation of ownership from management.
Therefore, the owner need not be the master now. Since their relationship is strictly confined to the terms of employment or the contract of service, the master has become the employer and the servant has become the person employed or employee. In a way, all the persons employed for hire or reward are employees. Therefore, 'employee' is a generic term indicative of the factum of being employed for hire.
However, certain distinguishable authority-oriented features like the enabling powers of representation, hire and fire, supervision, control over the lower rungs of hierarchy call for distinction among the employees. Hence the species of Managers, Supervisors, and Workmen or Workers. Thus, in the pyramidal structure of employment, Managers occupy the highest position, the supervisors the middle, and the workmen are at the bottom.
Since the objective of a Welfare State is social justice to all its citizens and particularly those at the bottom are more, their problems have to be addressed and redressed through appropriate labor legislations. Hence the employment of different terms such as workman/worker, employee, person employed, etc., depending upon the species to be protected by the respective employment legislations.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Meaning and Coverage of Worker under Factories Act 1948
Section 2(1) under the Factories Act, 1948 defines a "Worker" as a person employed directly or through any agency (including a contractor) with or without the knowledge of the principal employer, whether for remuneration or not, in any manufacturing process, or in any work incidental to or connected with the manufacturing process, but does not include any member of the armed forces of the Union.
The definition contains the following ingredients:
There should be 'a person employed'. The meaning of the word "employed":
The concept of "employment" involves three ingredients, i.e.
- Employer,
- Employee, and
- Contract of employment.
The 'employer' is one who employs, i.e., one who engages the services of other persons, whereas the 'employee' is one who works for another for hire.
Judgement of Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P. AIR 1958 S.C. 388 elaborates on the relationship between employer and employee as follows:
The employment is the contract of service between employer and employee where the employee agrees to serve the employer subject to employer control and supervision. The prima facie test for determining the relationship between the employer and employee is the existence of the right of the employer to supervise and control the work done by the employee, not only in directing what work the employee is to do but also in the manner in which he shall do his work.
Therefore, 'supervision and control' is the natural outcome when a person is employed by another person.
In the case of Shankar Balaji Waje v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 Bom. 236, the question arose whether a bidi roller is a worker or not. The management simply says that the laborer is to produce bidis rolled in a certain form. How the laborer carries out the work is his own concern and is not controlled by the management, which is concerned only with getting bidis rolled in a particular style with certain contents. The Supreme Court held that the bidi roller is not a worker. The whole conception of service does not fit well with a servant who has full liberty to attend to his work according to his pleasure and not according to the orders of his master. Where the employer retains direction and control over the workers both in the manner of the nature of the work and its details, they will be held as workers.
Whether all employees are workers?
In Works Manager, Central Rly. Workshop Jhansi v. Vishwanath and others, it was held that the definition of worker does not exclude those employees who are entrusted solely with clerical duties if they otherwise fall within the definition of 'worker'. Timekeepers employed to maintain attendance of the staff, job cards particularly of the various jobs under operation, and time-sheets of the staff engaged in the production of spare parts, repairs, etc.; and head time-keeper who supervises the work of the timekeepers, perform work which is incidental to or connected with the manufacturing process carried on in the factory and would therefore fall within the definition of the worker in the Act.
Now it is very important to understand the nature of work of a departmental manager. Whether a departmental manager works under the supervision and control of the employer or the departmental manager has the liberty to work at his discretion.
In Shankar Balaji Waje v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 Bom. 236, the question arose whether a bidi roller is a worker or not. The management simply says that the laborer is to produce bidis rolled in a certain form. How the laborer carries out the work is his own concern and is not controlled by the management, which is concerned only with getting bidis rolled in a particular style with certain contents. The Supreme Court held that the bidi roller is not a worker. The whole conception of service does not fit well with a servant who has full liberty to attend to his work according to his pleasure and not according to the orders of his master. Where the employer retains direction and control over the workers both in the manner of the nature of the work and its details, they will be held as workers.
In State of Kerala v. R.E. D'Souza, women and girls employed in peeling, washing, etc., of consignment of prawns brought on the premises at any time of the day or night, without any specified hours of work and without any control over their attendance or the nature, manner, or quantum of their work and who after finishing the work go to other premises in the locality where similar consignments of prawns are received, are not workers.
So, the deciding factor about the category of a departmental manager, whether it falls under the definition of worker or not, requires examining working conditions under employment like:
1. Whether the departmental manager's working hours are as per his own sweet will or not?
2. Whether the departmental manager's working method is out of employer supervision or not?
3. Whether the departmental manager's working is out of employer control or not?
If the answer to the above three questions is "No," then the departmental manager falls under the definition of a worker if he works within the factory for the manufacturing process or not.
If the answer to the above three questions is "Yes," then the departmental manager does not fall under the definition of a worker even if he works within the factory for the manufacturing process.
In the question of whether all employees are workers, the court said as follows:
Since the word employee has not been defined in the Act, it follows that all the workers within the ambit of the definition under the Factories Act would be employees, while all employees would not be workers (Harbanslal v. State of Karnataka, (1976)1 Karnt.J.111).
All persons employed in or in connection with a factory, whether or not employed as workers, are entitled to the benefits of the Act (Union of India v. G.M. Kokil, 1984 SCC (L&S) 631).
Once it is established prima facie that premises in question is a factory within the meaning of the Act, the provisions of Section 103 as to the presumption of employment are immediately attracted and the onus to prove the contrary shifts to the accused (Prafulbhai Patadia v. The State, 1976 (12) E.L.R. 329).
From Malaysia, Seremban
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Section 2(1) under the Factories Act, 1948 defines a "Worker" as a person employed directly or through any agency (including a contractor) with or without the knowledge of the principal employer, whether for remuneration or not, in any manufacturing process, or in any work incidental to or connected with the manufacturing process, but does not include any member of the armed forces of the Union.
The definition contains the following ingredients:
There should be 'a person employed'. The meaning of the word "employed":
The concept of "employment" involves three ingredients, i.e.
- Employer,
- Employee, and
- Contract of employment.
The 'employer' is one who employs, i.e., one who engages the services of other persons, whereas the 'employee' is one who works for another for hire.
Judgement of Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P. AIR 1958 S.C. 388 elaborates on the relationship between employer and employee as follows:
The employment is the contract of service between employer and employee where the employee agrees to serve the employer subject to employer control and supervision. The prima facie test for determining the relationship between the employer and employee is the existence of the right of the employer to supervise and control the work done by the employee, not only in directing what work the employee is to do but also in the manner in which he shall do his work.
Therefore, 'supervision and control' is the natural outcome when a person is employed by another person.
In the case of Shankar Balaji Waje v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 Bom. 236, the question arose whether a bidi roller is a worker or not. The management simply says that the laborer is to produce bidis rolled in a certain form. How the laborer carries out the work is his own concern and is not controlled by the management, which is concerned only with getting bidis rolled in a particular style with certain contents. The Supreme Court held that the bidi roller is not a worker. The whole conception of service does not fit well with a servant who has full liberty to attend to his work according to his pleasure and not according to the orders of his master. Where the employer retains direction and control over the workers both in the manner of the nature of the work and its details, they will be held as workers.
Whether all employees are workers?
In Works Manager, Central Rly. Workshop Jhansi v. Vishwanath and others, it was held that the definition of worker does not exclude those employees who are entrusted solely with clerical duties if they otherwise fall within the definition of 'worker'. Timekeepers employed to maintain attendance of the staff, job cards particularly of the various jobs under operation, and time-sheets of the staff engaged in the production of spare parts, repairs, etc.; and head time-keeper who supervises the work of the timekeepers, perform work which is incidental to or connected with the manufacturing process carried on in the factory and would therefore fall within the definition of the worker in the Act.
Now it is very important to understand the nature of work of a departmental manager. Whether a departmental manager works under the supervision and control of the employer or the departmental manager has the liberty to work at his discretion.
In Shankar Balaji Waje v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 Bom. 236, the question arose whether a bidi roller is a worker or not. The management simply says that the laborer is to produce bidis rolled in a certain form. How the laborer carries out the work is his own concern and is not controlled by the management, which is concerned only with getting bidis rolled in a particular style with certain contents. The Supreme Court held that the bidi roller is not a worker. The whole conception of service does not fit well with a servant who has full liberty to attend to his work according to his pleasure and not according to the orders of his master. Where the employer retains direction and control over the workers both in the manner of the nature of the work and its details, they will be held as workers.
In State of Kerala v. R.E. D'Souza, women and girls employed in peeling, washing, etc., of consignment of prawns brought on the premises at any time of the day or night, without any specified hours of work and without any control over their attendance or the nature, manner, or quantum of their work and who after finishing the work go to other premises in the locality where similar consignments of prawns are received, are not workers.
So, the deciding factor about the category of a departmental manager, whether it falls under the definition of worker or not, requires examining working conditions under employment like:
1. Whether the departmental manager's working hours are as per his own sweet will or not?
2. Whether the departmental manager's working method is out of employer supervision or not?
3. Whether the departmental manager's working is out of employer control or not?
If the answer to the above three questions is "No," then the departmental manager falls under the definition of a worker if he works within the factory for the manufacturing process or not.
If the answer to the above three questions is "Yes," then the departmental manager does not fall under the definition of a worker even if he works within the factory for the manufacturing process.
In the question of whether all employees are workers, the court said as follows:
Since the word employee has not been defined in the Act, it follows that all the workers within the ambit of the definition under the Factories Act would be employees, while all employees would not be workers (Harbanslal v. State of Karnataka, (1976)1 Karnt.J.111).
All persons employed in or in connection with a factory, whether or not employed as workers, are entitled to the benefits of the Act (Union of India v. G.M. Kokil, 1984 SCC (L&S) 631).
Once it is established prima facie that premises in question is a factory within the meaning of the Act, the provisions of Section 103 as to the presumption of employment are immediately attracted and the onus to prove the contrary shifts to the accused (Prafulbhai Patadia v. The State, 1976 (12) E.L.R. 329).
From Malaysia, Seremban
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Employee Appraisal Form new.doc