There seems to be no distinction drawn between administrative and managerial capacity/ function in relation to exclusion to the definition of workman. But it is clear that a technical manager, an R&D manager, Production manager or Safety officer is a manager but not involved in any administrative function. At the same time an Accounts or Finance Manager or an HR/Personnel Manager is a manager doing administrative work. Therefore, the term manager has a wider scope rather than administration.
let us also examine another verdict from the Apex Court which will be helpful for a person having 'some managerial roles'. In Ved Prakash Gupta Vs Delton Cable India Pvt Ltd (1984 AIR 914, 1984 SCR (3) 169) the question was whether a Security Inspector would come under the scope of workman. A perusal of the evidence showed that the substantial part of the work of the appellant Security Inspector
consisted of looking after the security of the factory and its property by deputing the watchmen working under him to work at the factory gate or sending them to watch-towers or around the factory or to accompany visitors. The appellant Security Inspector could never appoint or dismiss any workman or order any enquiry against any workman. It was held that the substantial duty of the appellant was only that of a Security Inspector at the gate of the factory premises and that it was neither managerial nor supervisory in nature. Therefore he clearly falls within the definition of workman under s.2(s) of the Act.
In another verdict, the Court observed that putting signature in the salary bills of the staff would not make a person employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity ( Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs Bhatia (Dead through Lrs) AIR 1975 SC 1898, 1975 Lab.IC.1439 SC)
As observed in Andhra Scientific Co Vs Seshagiri Rao (AIR 1967 SC 408) whether an employee is a workman or not is a question of law. We should not ignore this fact. The burden to prove lies on the person who disputes the status of workman. I think it is also fine if you go through the verdict in Aloysius Nunes Vs Thomas Cook India Ltd ( 2000(3) MHLJ404, 2000 Lab.I.C.2091 Bom) which has elaborated the meaning of supervisory, administrative and managerial functions quoting different case laws.
I once again say that it is still a question of law and if you are confident that you have not been doing managerial functions it is easy for you to establish that you would fall under the scope of workman.
From India, Kannur
4193let us also examine another verdict from the Apex Court which will be helpful for a person having 'some managerial roles'. In Ved Prakash Gupta Vs Delton Cable India Pvt Ltd (1984 AIR 914, 1984 SCR (3) 169) the question was whether a Security Inspector would come under the scope of workman. A perusal of the evidence showed that the substantial part of the work of the appellant Security Inspector
consisted of looking after the security of the factory and its property by deputing the watchmen working under him to work at the factory gate or sending them to watch-towers or around the factory or to accompany visitors. The appellant Security Inspector could never appoint or dismiss any workman or order any enquiry against any workman. It was held that the substantial duty of the appellant was only that of a Security Inspector at the gate of the factory premises and that it was neither managerial nor supervisory in nature. Therefore he clearly falls within the definition of workman under s.2(s) of the Act.
In another verdict, the Court observed that putting signature in the salary bills of the staff would not make a person employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity ( Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs Bhatia (Dead through Lrs) AIR 1975 SC 1898, 1975 Lab.IC.1439 SC)
As observed in Andhra Scientific Co Vs Seshagiri Rao (AIR 1967 SC 408) whether an employee is a workman or not is a question of law. We should not ignore this fact. The burden to prove lies on the person who disputes the status of workman. I think it is also fine if you go through the verdict in Aloysius Nunes Vs Thomas Cook India Ltd ( 2000(3) MHLJ404, 2000 Lab.I.C.2091 Bom) which has elaborated the meaning of supervisory, administrative and managerial functions quoting different case laws.
I once again say that it is still a question of law and if you are confident that you have not been doing managerial functions it is easy for you to establish that you would fall under the scope of workman.
From India, Kannur
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Termination-emp loyment_563.pdf
Termination letter.doc