Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Company of India Ltd. and the Burmah Shell Management Staff Association, a registered trade union representing employees designated as junior management staff in the Maharashtra region. The company was engaged in marketing petroleum products and oils with operations divided into marketing, distribution, personnel, and finance functions across India. The association served a charter of demands on 29 November 1966 seeking revision of scales of pay, dearness allowance, overtime payment, duty allowance, and other allowances. The Government of Maharashtra referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal on 28 October 1967. The association filed its statement of claim on 2 December 1967. The company filed a preliminary written statement on 15 January 1968 contending that none of the members of the association was a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by Act 36 of 1956, and therefore the reference was incompetent. A rejoinder was filed on 27 March 1968. The Tribunal gave an interim award on 9 January 1970 classifying ten categories of employees. It held six categories to be workmen: Transport Engineer, District Engineer, Foreman (Chemicals), Fuelling Superintendent, Chemists, and Sales Engineering Representative. It held four categories not to be workmen: Blending Supervisors, Foremen, Depot Superintendents, and District Sales Representatives. The company challenged the decision in respect of the six categories held to be workmen, and the association challenged the four categories held not to be workmen. The Supreme Court considered the proper test for determining who is a workman. It held that a workman must be employed to do the main work he is required to do, even though he may incidentally do other types of work; thus the substantial work test governs. Applying this test, the Court held that Transport Engineer, District Engineer, Foreman (Chemicals), and Sales Engineering Representative were not workmen because their main work was supervisory or sales promotion, despite use of technical knowledge or incidental technical duties. Fuelling Superintendents and Chemists were workmen because their main work was manual or technical with only incidental supervision. Among the four categories earlier held not workmen, the Court held that Blending Supervisors working in the Wadilube plant were workmen because their main work was manual operation of machinery, while those at settling tanks and small packages filling were supervisory and not workmen. Foremen (Tank Farm and Pump House) and Foremen (Tank Lorry Loading, Tank Wagon Loading and Tank Wagon Unloading) were not workmen because their main work was supervisory. Depot Superintendents were not workmen because their principal duties were supervisory and managerial. District Sales Representatives were not workmen because their work of investigating and promoting sales did not fall within any of the four classes of manual, clerical, technical, or supervisory work. The Supreme Court partly allowed both appeals and modified the interim award accordingly. It relied on earlier decisions including May & Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, South Indian Bank Ltd. v. A.R. Chacko, Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, and other English authorities, but held that earlier Burmah Shell decisions were not applicable. The Court emphasized that the word 'technical' in Section 2(s) could not be interpreted to mean that any technical employee is automatically a workman; the nature of the main employment matters.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Definition of Workman - Main or Substantial Work Test - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s) - The Court held that a workman must be employed to do the main work required, even though incidental other work may be done. To determine whether employees in various categories fall within Section 2(s), the substantial work test applies, not incidental duties. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Classification of Transport Engineer - Supervisory Duties Not Technical Work - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s) - Transport Engineer's major work was supervision of repair, maintenance, servicing and fabrication done by mechanics and fitters. Technical knowledge used for supervision did not convert supervisory work into technical work; held not a workman. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Classification of District Engineer - Supervisory and Checking Duties - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s) - District Engineer supervised site suitability, lay-out, estimates, tenders, construction, and certifying bills, not doing the technical work himself. Held not employed to do technical work and thus not a workman. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Classification of Foreman (Chemicals) - Supervisory Duties Main - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s) - Foreman (Chemicals) performed primarily supervisory duties with only incidental manual work. Tribunal erred by considering duties of chemists; held not a workman. (Paras Not mentioned) E) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Classification of Fuelling Superintendent - Manual Work Main - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s) - Fuelling Superintendent's main and substantial work was his own manual work at depot and when delivering oil to aircraft, not supervising few workmen. Leadership of team did not make the work supervisory; held workman. (Paras Not mentioned) F) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Classification of Chemists - Technical Work with Incidental Supervision - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s) - Chemists' main work was testing and giving results, with only incidental supervision of laboratory attendants and analysts. Guidance to assistants was ancillary to their own technical work; held workmen. (Paras Not mentioned) G) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Classification of Sales Engineering Representative - Sales Promotion Not Enumerated Work - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s) - Sales Engineering Representative's main work was promotion of sales by giving technical advice and demonstrations, but that was ancillary to sales promotion. Not employed on clerical or manual work; held not a workman. (Paras Not mentioned) H) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Classification of Blending Supervisor (Wadilube Plant) - Manual Work Main - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s) - Blending Supervisor at Wadilube plant operated machinery and ensured oils blended properly; supervisory work was minor. Held manual worker and therefore workman; Tribunal's contrary decision incorrect. (Paras Not mentioned) I) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Classification of Blending Supervisor (Settling Tanks) - Supervisory Work Main - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s) - Principal work was seeing that barrels and containers were filled by workmen under charge who did physical work. Primarily supervisory; held not a workman. (Paras Not mentioned) J) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Classification of Blending Supervisor (Small Packages Filling) - Supervisory Work Main - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s) - Work primarily supervisory; held not workman, consistent with Tribunal. (Paras Not mentioned) K) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Classification of Foreman (Tank Farm and Pump House) - Supervisory Work Main - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s) - Of technical, skilled manual, and supervisory duties, supervisory was main and substantial; other duties incidental. Held not workman. (Paras Not mentioned) L) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Classification of Foreman (Tank Lorry Loading, Tank Wagon Loading and Tank Wagon Unloading) - Supervisory Work Main - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s) - Responsible for proper loading and unloading by supervising manual labourers who did the work. Supervisory; held not workman. (Paras Not mentioned) M) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Classification of Depot Superintendents - Managerial and Supervisory Work - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s) - Principal duties supervisory and managerial, with clerical duties incidental. Held not workman. (Paras Not mentioned) N) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Classification of District Sales Representatives - Work Not in Enumerated Classes - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s) - Work of investigating and promoting sales could not be classified as manual, clerical, technical, or supervisory; held not a workman. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether members of Burmah Shell Management Staff Association designated as junior management staff fell within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by Act 36 of 1956; and whether the Industrial Tribunal correctly classified each of the ten categories of employees as workmen or not.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed both appeals. It held that Transport Engineer, District Engineer, Foreman (Chemicals), Sales Engineering Representative, Blending Supervisors (settling tanks and small packages filling), Foreman (Tank Farm and Pump House), Foreman (Tank Lorry Loading etc.), Depot Superintendents, and District Sales Representatives were not workmen under Section 2(s). It held that Fuelling Superintendents and Chemists were workmen, and that Blending Supervisors working in the Wadilube plant were workmen. The interim award was modified accordingly.
Law Points
- Main or substantial work test determines workman status under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- supervisory work even with technical knowledge is not technical work
- incidental manual or technical duties do not convert supervisory employment into workman
- promotion of sales and giving advice is not manual
- clerical
- technical or supervisory work
- word 'technical' in Section 2(s) cannot be interpreted to cover every technical employee automatically
