Dear Friends



In order to decide as to whether an employee, even though designated as an officer is a workman or not, the primary or substantial duties as performed by him are relevant. If the main work of the employee is not manual or clerical or if little manual or clerical work which he does forms only a part of his duties, then such an employee cannot be deemed to be a 'workman' as defined in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The monthly ceiling of Rs. 1600/- per month as given in the definition of workman in I.D. Act has not only become of obsolete but deceptive also and as such cannot be taken in to consideration.

Courts have laid down the following tests to determination as to whether an employee is a workman or not :

1. It is the dominant purpose of the employment that is relevant and not some additional duties which may be performed by the employee.

2. It is not the designation of the post held by the employee which is relevant, but what is relevant is the nature of duties performed by the employee.

3. The Court has to find out whether the employee can bind the company in the matter of some decision taken on behalf of the company.

4. What is the nature of the supervisory duties performed by the employee? Do they include directing the subordinates to do their work and/or to oversee their performance?

5. Does the employee have power either to recommend or sanction leave of the workman working under him?

6. Does he have the power to take any disciplinary action against the workmen working under him?

7. Does he have the power to assign duties and distribute the work?

8. Does the employee have the authority to indent material and to distribute the same amongst the workmen?

9. Does the employee have power to supervise the work of men of does he supervise only machines and not the work of men?

10. Does the employee have any workmen working under him and does he write their confidential report?

Court Rulings on when Supervisor is declared a workman under ID Act

1. Chemist I/c - empowered to recommend leave, but no power to grant leave or to take disciplinary Act. - will be workman, since duties are of technical nature.

(Sudhir kumar vs M/s Ferro Alloys Corp. Ltd. 1992 LLR 422 (Bom.)

2. Supervisor - No power to recommend promotion or sanction leave or increment or take disciplinary action, will be workman even if six workman working under him.

(Gwalior Instrument Co. (P.) Ltd. vs K.M. Desai 1992 LLR 911 (Bom.).

3. Shop I/c - Marking attendance of workmen, signing on material issue slip, signing condemnation reports, signatory to union settlement, signing confidential report of workmen, recommending leave - 'No' workman.

Instrumentation employees union vs labour court 1993 LLR 274 (Ker.)

4. Spinning asst. even through instructing to fitters but not authorised to sanction leave is workman.

(Binny Ltd. vs M.P. Appadurai 1995 LLR 1027 (Mad.)

5. An employee incidentally supervising the work will be deemed as workman.

(Shankarbhai Nathalal vs Maize Products 2003 LLR 192 (Guj.)

6. Even if employee was doing some supervisory work, or other incidental work, he will be a workman.

Bellish India Ltd. Vs P.O. Labour Court, 2003 LLR 293 (Delhi)



Anil Kaushik

Chief Editor, Business Manager – HR Magazine

B-138, Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar – 301001 (Raj.)

Mob. : 09829133699