Recently, some cases have been filed in labor courts by software engineers against illegal termination. The main disputed question there would be whether they are considered workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. I am aware of some judgments from the labor court in Chennai holding them as workmen. Can anyone elaborate on this with precedents if available.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
4From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
Please refer to the following link: [Business Standard - Chennai court orders HCL to reinstate sacked employee](https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/chennai-court-orders-hcl-to-reinstate-sacked-employee-116051000750_1.html).
Thank you.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please refer to the following link: [Business Standard - Chennai court orders HCL to reinstate sacked employee](https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/chennai-court-orders-hcl-to-reinstate-sacked-employee-116051000750_1.html).
Thank you.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
IT professionals challenging termination
IT professionals challenging their termination have made headlines in newspapers in Chennai. In one such news, it was reported that the Additional Labour Court at Chennai directed the reinstatement of the petitioner employee with continuity of service and to pay full back wages and all other benefits from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. (Source: The Hindu, May 11, 2016). It was reported that this learned court has inter alia observed the following:
"It cannot be denied that the job of an engineer in a software company involves skills and technical knowledge. Therefore, it can be concluded that the job of a software engineer can be termed as skilled or technical."
It was further observed by the learned judge that "any person doing a skilled job is a workman under the definition of that term. So I conclude that the petitioner is a workman."
Legal proceedings and court decisions
In the above case, before the Madras High Court, it was contended that the concerned petitioner, being a Project Assistant Consultant, is a workman since his main duties and responsibilities are technical in nature, and the company being an industry within the purview of the I.D. Act, hence the termination is contrary to the provisions of the I.D. Act. Without getting into the merits, the High Court directed the Conciliation Officer to decide on the issue and, if the concerned employee is found to be a workman and the company to be an industry, to conciliate the matter as per the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. When the matter went up in appeal before the Division Bench, their Lordships set aside the judgment of the learned single judge mainly on the ground that the Conciliation Officer under the I.D. Act is not competent to settle a dispute on whether the concerned employee is a workman as per the meaning provided in the Industrial Dispute Act, as the same can only be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court having adjudicatory power.
Definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act
Whether an employee is a "workman" within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act is the very foundation of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. If the answer is affirmative, an IT professional can reap advantages under section 2A of the Act in case of termination, discharge, dismissal, and retrenchment, or else they have to approach a civil court for relief.
Section 2(s) of the ID Act, which defines 'workman,' is reproduced herein below:
"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 rupees per month 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.
It is evident from the definition that a person working in a purely managerial and/or supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs 10,000/- per month does not fall within the definition of workman under the Act. However, in the case of multifarious functions, the nature of the main function performed by the person has to be considered to determine if the person is a "workman." Designation is not a conclusive factor in determining the nature of work of a person. Undue importance need not be accorded to designation. Rather, the work performed, the principal nature of duties, and functions will determine whether the person will fall under the purview of workman under section 2(s) of the Act. There cannot be any straightjacket formula for determining whether the person is a workman under the Act, as it will be determined upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If a person is mainly doing supervisory work but incidentally or for a fraction of time also does clerical or technical jobs, as the case may be, it would be held he is employed in supervisory work. Conversely, if his main work is clerical and/or technical but at the same time performs some supervisory job incidentally, he will be treated as a workman under the Act.
Supreme Court's stance on technical vs. supervisory work
In another case, the Supreme Court did not agree with the submission that if a technical employee even gives advice or guides other workmen, it must be held that he is doing technical work and not supervisory work. Relying upon the above, if the man is employed because he possesses such faculties and they enable him to produce something as a creation of his own, he will have to be held to be employed on technical work, even though, in carrying out that work, he may have to go through a lot of manual labor. If, on the other hand, he is merely employed in supervising the work of others, the fact that, for the purpose of proper supervision, he is required to have technical knowledge will not convert his supervisory work into technical work. The work of giving advice and guidance cannot be held to be an employment to do technical work.
Creativity and technical work
Here it may be pertinent to mention that work that needs an imaginative or creative quotient is treated differently by the courts. A Legal Assistant, it was inter alia held by the Supreme Court as follows:
The respondent was not performing any stereotype job. His job involved creativity. He not only used to render legal opinions on a subject but also used to draft pleadings on behalf of the appellant as also represent it before various courts/authorities. He would also discharge quasi-judicial functions as an Enquiry Officer in departmental enquiries against the workmen. Such a job, in our considered opinion, would not make him a workman.
Implications for software professionals
The main argument that goes in favor of the software professional is that they perform a job which is technical in nature and therefore they should fall within the purview of workman as defined by the Act. Till 29-8-1956, the definition of workman under the ID Act was confined to skilled and unskilled manual or clerical work and did not include the categories of persons who were employed to do 'supervisory' and 'technical' work. They came to be included by virtue of the Amending Act 36 of 1956. There is no difficulty in treating a person as a workman under the Act when he/she is performing a technical job which is stereotypical in nature, especially in BPO, as this kind of job does not require imaginative or creative faculties or extensive training or mastery. However, before the constitution bench judgment, it was extended, to be a workman under the Act, it is not enough that the concerned person is not covered by any of the four exceptions to the definition. As it appears, courts have distinguished works which need imaginative or creative quotient from jobs which are stereotypical in nature. Hence, a person may be doing a technical job but may need imaginative and creative faculties for performing the job. Such persons will be excluded from the purview of the definition of workman. It will therefore not be correct to straightjacket all professionals in an IT industry doing technical jobs as workmen under the Act. Persons whose main functions are managerial and supervisory will also remain outside the purview of the definitions of workman. As held, employees giving advice and technical guidance or otherwise cannot be held to do the job of the workman as defined under the Act. A software programmer, developer, web designer, or content writer may be doing a technical job, but this kind of job entails creative and imaginative faculties. Hence, this class of IT professionals cannot be treated as workmen under the Act.
Distinction between occupation and profession
In this context, it may be noteworthy to mention, the Supreme Court opined that medical professionals treating patients and diagnosing diseases cannot be held to be workmen under the Act. The court in this judgment laid emphasis on the distinction between occupation and profession and inter alia observed: "Distinction between occupation and profession is of paramount importance. An occupation is a principal activity related to job, work, or calling that earns regular wages for a person, and a profession, on the other hand, requires extensive training, study, and mastery of the subject, whether it is teaching students, providing legal advice, or treating patients or diagnosing diseases. Persons performing such functions cannot be seen as a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the ID Act."
Conclusion
Hence, from the above discussion, the overview is that it will be utterly wrong to straightjacket all IT professionals as workmen under section 2(s) of the Act just because they are performing either a technical nature of job or not falling within the four exceptions to the definition of the Act. Their status as workmen will be determined by their job description, responsibilities, creativeness required to perform the job, and the kind of training they had to undergo for performing the job. However, nothing can be said with certainty till a case is put to judicial scrutiny as each case will be determined by its own merits.
Besides the factors mentioned hereinabove, educational qualification is also another important consideration to determine whether a person can be termed as a worker. If the employee has educational qualifications and he is better equipped than other persons, if he has a specialized educational background and experience and has acquired special skills, the courts have held that such a person is not a workman.
Hence, to decide whether an employee is a workman, it shall be of prime importance to ascertain the nature of work being done by the employee and not the designation or the position he occupies in the company.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(3)
Amend(0)
IT professionals challenging their termination have made headlines in newspapers in Chennai. In one such news, it was reported that the Additional Labour Court at Chennai directed the reinstatement of the petitioner employee with continuity of service and to pay full back wages and all other benefits from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. (Source: The Hindu, May 11, 2016). It was reported that this learned court has inter alia observed the following:
"It cannot be denied that the job of an engineer in a software company involves skills and technical knowledge. Therefore, it can be concluded that the job of a software engineer can be termed as skilled or technical."
It was further observed by the learned judge that "any person doing a skilled job is a workman under the definition of that term. So I conclude that the petitioner is a workman."
Legal proceedings and court decisions
In the above case, before the Madras High Court, it was contended that the concerned petitioner, being a Project Assistant Consultant, is a workman since his main duties and responsibilities are technical in nature, and the company being an industry within the purview of the I.D. Act, hence the termination is contrary to the provisions of the I.D. Act. Without getting into the merits, the High Court directed the Conciliation Officer to decide on the issue and, if the concerned employee is found to be a workman and the company to be an industry, to conciliate the matter as per the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act. When the matter went up in appeal before the Division Bench, their Lordships set aside the judgment of the learned single judge mainly on the ground that the Conciliation Officer under the I.D. Act is not competent to settle a dispute on whether the concerned employee is a workman as per the meaning provided in the Industrial Dispute Act, as the same can only be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court having adjudicatory power.
Definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act
Whether an employee is a "workman" within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act is the very foundation of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. If the answer is affirmative, an IT professional can reap advantages under section 2A of the Act in case of termination, discharge, dismissal, and retrenchment, or else they have to approach a civil court for relief.
Section 2(s) of the ID Act, which defines 'workman,' is reproduced herein below:
"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 rupees per month 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.
It is evident from the definition that a person working in a purely managerial and/or supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs 10,000/- per month does not fall within the definition of workman under the Act. However, in the case of multifarious functions, the nature of the main function performed by the person has to be considered to determine if the person is a "workman." Designation is not a conclusive factor in determining the nature of work of a person. Undue importance need not be accorded to designation. Rather, the work performed, the principal nature of duties, and functions will determine whether the person will fall under the purview of workman under section 2(s) of the Act. There cannot be any straightjacket formula for determining whether the person is a workman under the Act, as it will be determined upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If a person is mainly doing supervisory work but incidentally or for a fraction of time also does clerical or technical jobs, as the case may be, it would be held he is employed in supervisory work. Conversely, if his main work is clerical and/or technical but at the same time performs some supervisory job incidentally, he will be treated as a workman under the Act.
Supreme Court's stance on technical vs. supervisory work
In another case, the Supreme Court did not agree with the submission that if a technical employee even gives advice or guides other workmen, it must be held that he is doing technical work and not supervisory work. Relying upon the above, if the man is employed because he possesses such faculties and they enable him to produce something as a creation of his own, he will have to be held to be employed on technical work, even though, in carrying out that work, he may have to go through a lot of manual labor. If, on the other hand, he is merely employed in supervising the work of others, the fact that, for the purpose of proper supervision, he is required to have technical knowledge will not convert his supervisory work into technical work. The work of giving advice and guidance cannot be held to be an employment to do technical work.
Creativity and technical work
Here it may be pertinent to mention that work that needs an imaginative or creative quotient is treated differently by the courts. A Legal Assistant, it was inter alia held by the Supreme Court as follows:
The respondent was not performing any stereotype job. His job involved creativity. He not only used to render legal opinions on a subject but also used to draft pleadings on behalf of the appellant as also represent it before various courts/authorities. He would also discharge quasi-judicial functions as an Enquiry Officer in departmental enquiries against the workmen. Such a job, in our considered opinion, would not make him a workman.
Implications for software professionals
The main argument that goes in favor of the software professional is that they perform a job which is technical in nature and therefore they should fall within the purview of workman as defined by the Act. Till 29-8-1956, the definition of workman under the ID Act was confined to skilled and unskilled manual or clerical work and did not include the categories of persons who were employed to do 'supervisory' and 'technical' work. They came to be included by virtue of the Amending Act 36 of 1956. There is no difficulty in treating a person as a workman under the Act when he/she is performing a technical job which is stereotypical in nature, especially in BPO, as this kind of job does not require imaginative or creative faculties or extensive training or mastery. However, before the constitution bench judgment, it was extended, to be a workman under the Act, it is not enough that the concerned person is not covered by any of the four exceptions to the definition. As it appears, courts have distinguished works which need imaginative or creative quotient from jobs which are stereotypical in nature. Hence, a person may be doing a technical job but may need imaginative and creative faculties for performing the job. Such persons will be excluded from the purview of the definition of workman. It will therefore not be correct to straightjacket all professionals in an IT industry doing technical jobs as workmen under the Act. Persons whose main functions are managerial and supervisory will also remain outside the purview of the definitions of workman. As held, employees giving advice and technical guidance or otherwise cannot be held to do the job of the workman as defined under the Act. A software programmer, developer, web designer, or content writer may be doing a technical job, but this kind of job entails creative and imaginative faculties. Hence, this class of IT professionals cannot be treated as workmen under the Act.
Distinction between occupation and profession
In this context, it may be noteworthy to mention, the Supreme Court opined that medical professionals treating patients and diagnosing diseases cannot be held to be workmen under the Act. The court in this judgment laid emphasis on the distinction between occupation and profession and inter alia observed: "Distinction between occupation and profession is of paramount importance. An occupation is a principal activity related to job, work, or calling that earns regular wages for a person, and a profession, on the other hand, requires extensive training, study, and mastery of the subject, whether it is teaching students, providing legal advice, or treating patients or diagnosing diseases. Persons performing such functions cannot be seen as a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the ID Act."
Conclusion
Hence, from the above discussion, the overview is that it will be utterly wrong to straightjacket all IT professionals as workmen under section 2(s) of the Act just because they are performing either a technical nature of job or not falling within the four exceptions to the definition of the Act. Their status as workmen will be determined by their job description, responsibilities, creativeness required to perform the job, and the kind of training they had to undergo for performing the job. However, nothing can be said with certainty till a case is put to judicial scrutiny as each case will be determined by its own merits.
Besides the factors mentioned hereinabove, educational qualification is also another important consideration to determine whether a person can be termed as a worker. If the employee has educational qualifications and he is better equipped than other persons, if he has a specialized educational background and experience and has acquired special skills, the courts have held that such a person is not a workman.
Hence, to decide whether an employee is a workman, it shall be of prime importance to ascertain the nature of work being done by the employee and not the designation or the position he occupies in the company.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(3)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.
Industrial Disputes Amendment Act 2010.doc
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT.pdf