Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Christi Sahitya Prasarak, a public charitable trust and society running bookshops, challenged an Award-Part I dated 23.7.1995 passed by the Labour Court at Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No.225/1986. The Labour Court had held that the reference was maintainable and that the first respondent, Bhaskar S. Gaikwad, was a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent was appointed in February 1964 as a clerk-cum-salesman and after 19 years was promoted to Acting Manager. The management contended that as Acting Manager, he performed managerial functions and thus was not a workman. The Labour Court, after examining the nature of duties, found that the respondent's work was predominantly clerical and sales-oriented, not managerial. The High Court, in this writ petition, upheld the Labour Court's finding, noting that the burden to prove that an employee is not a workman lies on the employer, which the petitioner failed to discharge. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Workman - Definition under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The primary test to determine if an employee is a workman is the nature of duties performed, not the designation. An employee promoted to Acting Manager but performing predominantly clerical and sales duties remains a workman. The burden of proving that an employee is not a workman lies on the employer. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee initially appointed as a clerk-cum-salesman and later promoted to Acting Manager continues to be a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Labour Court's Award-Part I that the respondent is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Nature of duties test
- Managerial functions test
- Burden of proof on employer
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (09) 87
Writ Petition No.247 of 1997
Mr. A.M. Joshi and Mr. S.D. Rayrikar for the petitioner, Mr. K.S. Bapat with Mr. J.K. Desai for the respondent no.1
M/s. Christi Sahitya Prasarak
Shri Bhaskar S. Gaikwad, The Presiding Officer, 5th Labour Court, Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an Award-Part I of the Labour Court holding that the respondent is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the Labour Court's award and to have the reference dismissed on the ground that the respondent was not a workman.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, a charitable trust, contended that the respondent, promoted to Acting Manager, was not a workman under the Act and thus the reference was not maintainable.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court at Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No.225/1986 passed an Award-Part I on 23.7.1995 holding that the reference was maintainable and the respondent was a workman.
Issues
Whether the respondent, initially appointed as a clerk-cum-salesman and later promoted to Acting Manager, is a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the respondent, as Acting Manager, performed managerial functions and thus was not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act.
The respondent contended that his duties remained clerical and sales-oriented, and he did not exercise any managerial functions.
Ratio Decidendi
The determination of whether an employee is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 depends on the nature of duties performed, not the designation. The burden of proving that an employee is not a workman lies on the employer. In this case, the employer failed to discharge that burden as the evidence showed the respondent's duties were predominantly clerical and sales-oriented, not managerial.
Judgment Excerpts
By the said Award, it has been held by the learned Judge of the Labour Court that the reference was maintainable and the issue raised by the management that the respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’), has been answered against it.
Procedural History
The respondent was appointed in February 1964 as a clerk-cum-salesman. After 19 years, he was promoted to Acting Manager. The management raised an issue that he was not a workman. The Labour Court passed an Award-Part I on 23.7.1995 in Reference (IDA) No.225/1986 holding that the reference was maintainable and the respondent was a workman. The petitioner challenged this award by filing Writ Petition No.247 of 1997 before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(s)
