The question that falls for consideration is: whether the Respondent who was working as a General Manager (Research) could be considered as a “workman” under the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and an “employee” under Section 3(5) of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. The Industrial Court, Mumbai, in the complaint filed by the Respondent, on a preliminary issue, held that the Respondent is a workman. This finding has been challenged in the present petition by the petitioner.

2. The Respondent is a nonprofit company under Section 25 of the Companies Act. It is primarily a Scientific Research Organization, and publishes research journals. The object of the petitioner is to undertake and promote scientific research in the field of development of Indian trade and industry. The petitioner has set up World Trade Centre at Mumbai, for which Government of Maharashtra gave a plot of land on concessional terms. The petitioner is managed by a Council of Management. Four members of the Council are nominated by the Government of Maharashtra.

3. The Respondent joined the services of the petitioner on 21 December 1987 as a Research Associate. His services were terminated on 31 December 1988. He instituted proceedings challenging his termination in the Labour Court. He succeeded in the Labour Court and this Court and thereafter he was reinstated on 27 August 1997. Thereafter he was posted as the Deputy Manager (Research). The Respondent filed a Complaint (ULP) No.1316 of 1998 making various grievances against the petitioner. He sought a direction to produce salary statements showing grades, revision of salary, designation of employees and their academic qualifications, for a period from the year 1986. The Respondent raised various general grievances in the complaint. In the written statement, the petitioner raised an issue that the Respondent is not a ‘workman’. A preliminary issue was framed by the Industrial Court as to whether the Respondent was an 'employee' under the definition of Section 3(5) of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The Respondent examined himself. The Industrial Court by the impugned order held that the Respondent was primarily doing clerical, unskilled, skilled and technical work, and nothing was shown by the petitioner that he was doing any supervisory or managerial duties. Accordingly, the Industrial Court by the impugned order held that the Respondent falls in the category of ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and an ‘employee’ under Section 3(5) of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act.

4. It will be fruitful to notice the statutory provisions and the decisions governing the field, so as to appreciate the scope of enquiry to be conducted to ascertain whether a person is a workman or not. Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act reads as under :

“Sec.2(s): “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person.”

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding Ten thousand rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a manageri