To Be Termed As “Workmen”, Requirements U/s. 2(s) Of Industrial Disputes Act Must Be Satisfied: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, allowed a Writ Petition challenging the impugned order of the Labour Court, wherein it was held that the Respondent was a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). The High Court emphasized that in order for an individual to be termed as a workman, the requirement mentioned under Section 2(s) of the 1947 Act is required to be fulfilled.
The Bench of Justice Avinash G. Gharote observed, “A perusal of the job purpose, role and responsibilities of the respondent/complainant as indicated in Annexure-II would demonstrate that by no stretch of imagination the respondent could be termed as a ‘workman’. For the purpose of he being termed as a workman, the requirement under section 2(s) of the ID Act are required to be satisfied”.
Advocate H. V. Thakur appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate P. V. Kavishar appeared for the Respondent.
The Court placed reliance on the case of Standard Chartered Bank v Vandana Joshi and Anr (2010(2) Mh.L.J. 22), wherein it was held that “It is now also a well settled principle of law that the burden lies on the person who asserts the status of a workman under section 2(s) to establish with reference to the dominant nature of his/her duties that the work which is performed falls within one of the stipulated categories in Section 2(s)”.
The Court also placed reliance on the case of Twenty-First Century Printers Limited v K.P. Abraham and Anr (2008 SCC OnLine Bom 695), wherein it was held that “The true test must depend on the nature of the function and not whether the person has any other employee working under him… Having regard to the nature of the activity of purchase, it appears that the function must be classified as managerial being part of the controlling and regulating functions of the industry”.
The Court, after analysing the employment terms of the Respondent, held that the nature of the employment of the Respondent does not indicate his involvement in any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work and therefore, he cannot be termed as ‘workman’ for the purposes of Section 2(s) of the ID Act.
“The nature of duties which the respondent is required to perform in terms of the order of appointment and those specifically enumerated in Annexure-II above clearly indicate that the employment of the respondent is neither to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work”, the Court asserted.
The Court further noted that the Labour Court termed the Respondent as a ‘workman’ merely because the Respondent did not have the power to recommend and assign, but failed to take into consideration the dictum established in the Standard Chartered Bank case (supra).
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title: Abbott India Limited v. Dipak s/o Arunrao Deshmukh
