presentation on workmen

7/29/2019 Presentation on Workmen

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/presentation-on-workmen 1/21

Workmen



Definition

• Sec 2(s) of Industrial Disputes act 1947 defined

workmen as

• “Any person (including an apprentice ) employed

in any industry to do any manual, skilled,

unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or

supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the

terms of employment be express or implied andfor the purposes of any proceeding under this Act

in relation to an industrial dispute”



It does not include any person :

•Who is subject to the Air Force Act, Army Act,Navy Act, 1950

• Who is employed in police service or as anofficer or other employee of a prison

• Who is employed mainly in a managerial oradministrative capacity

• Who is being employed in a supervisory

capacity, draws wages exceeding Rs 10,000per mensem



CASE: Div. Manager, New India

Assurance vs. A. Sankaralingam

PART TIME: WORKMAN



FACTS

• Respondent-writ petitioner was appointed on2nd January 1986 as a Sweeper-cum-WaterCarrier in the Office of the Divisional Manager,

New India Assurance Company Ltd.• Monthly wage of Rs.130/-

• Made a request that his services be

regularized• Informed orally that he was not required to

work with effect from 15th March 1989



ISSUES

• Tribunal also observed that as the duty hours of the workman were only one or two hours a dayfor which he was paid a sum of Rs.150/- p.m

•Madras High Court found that the finding of theTribunal was factually wrong

• The Tribunal held that Sankaralingam was not aworkman within the meaning of section 2(s) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as he hadworked only as a part-time employee and thattoo on an ad-hoc basis



ARGUMENT

• A part-time worker is not entitled to the

protection granted to a regular employee or

"workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act.



DECISION

• Supreme Court held the workman’stermination by the company illegal

• The apex court also rejected the argument of

the company• The apex court citing its earlier rulings said

that the definition of `workman' as given in

the Industrial Disputes Act does not make anydistinction between a full-time employee anda part-time employee.



CASE NAME

Bharat Bhawan Trust Vs. Bharat

Bhawan Artists Association



Facts

• Bharat Bhawan Trust was established under the

Bharat Bhawan Nyas Adhiniyam,1982

• The main objects of the said Trust are to preserve

and explore, innovate, promote and disseminatearts and to manage and expand Bharat Bhawan

as a national centre of excellence in creative arts.

• The trust entered into various agreements withcreative artists for production of drama and

theatre management



Issue

• Apprehending that their services were likely to

be terminated or not renewed on the expiry of

the contract, these artists raised a dispute

• The appropriate government referred the

dispute to labor court for adjudication



Argument

• Bharat Bhawan is an institution engaged in

promotion of and any culture cannot be

classified as ‘industry’

• Activities carried out by institution do not

result in large scale of production ,which can

be organized by co-operation of employer and

employee ,production is not the result of systematic activities



Decision

•The High Court by an order ,directed the LabourCourt to decide the preliminary objection raisedby the appellant on the basis of the documentsfiled by the parties before the Labour Court.

•

The Labour Court made an order holding on thebasis of the documents filed by the parties thatthe appellant is an industry and the artists areworkmen. This order was in challenge in thisappeal.

• On appeal, the supreme court held that it wasdoubtful if the trust can be held to be an industry

• It also held that artists were not workmen



D.P.MAHESHWARIV/S

DELHI ADMINISTRATION

CASE STUDY: CLERICAL WORK



INTRODUCTION

PETITIONER: D.P.MAHESHWARI

V/S

RESPONDENT:DELHI ADMINISTRATION ORS.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 14/09/1983

BENCH: REDDY.O.CHINNAPPA



Workmen



FACTS

D.P.Maheshwari was an employee of

Toshniwal Brothers pvt. Ltd, when his services

were terminated, with effect from 28th july

1969.

He raised an industrial dispute on 3rd july 1970

Governor of Delhi referred the dispute for

adjudication to the additional labour court

Delhi.



Management of the company classified all

their employees into 3 classes A,B and C

A- managerial class

B- supervisory class

C- other staff

Labour court found that, the duty dischargedby D.P.maheshwari was of clerical nature and

not supervisory nature.



ISSUES

The issue arose whether an employee discharging

the duties of clerical nature, was a workman.

The labour court found that D.P.Maheshwari was

discharging work of clerical nature.

The single judge and division bench of Delhi high

court reversed the findings of LC.

On appeal,the supreme court held the fact thatMaheshwari was not discharging supervisory

function.



ARGUMENT

High court argued that, that this was an unfairreading of labour court’s judgement, as labourcourt was influenced by the fact, that

appellant was not employed in supervisorycapacity.

Shri A.K.Gupta the learned counsel for theappellant, argued that the high court literallyexercised appellate powers and recorded thefindings that differ from that of LC findings.



DECISION

It was finally decided that the appellant was

discharging duties of clerical nature, and thus

is considered as a worker .

Division bench felt sorry, that it did not

considered the evidence made by the labour

court.

The appellant was entitled to rupees 5000,

which the company gave.

presentation on workmen

Documents