Back
2002 Supreme(Del) 244
High Court Of Delhi
HCL INFOSYSTEMS LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
JPS MALIK - Respondent
Decided On : 02/19/2002
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the exclusion clause (iv) specifying the conditions under which a person employed in a supervisory capacity would not be considered a 'workman'.
Headnote:
workman - Definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - [Section 2(s)] - The court discussed the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the exclusion clause (iv) which specifies the conditions under which a person employed in a supervisory capacity would not be considered a 'workman'. The court analyzed previous judgments to determine the nature of supervisory work and the level of authority required to be considered a supervisor under the Act. The interpretation of these legal provisions influenced the court's decision in dismissing the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed that the respondent, based on his duties, should not be considered a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's duties did not exclude him from the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Act, and the learned Labour Court's decision was upheld.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent's duties placed him outside the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' and the exclusion clause (iv) under Section 2(s) of the Act, as well as the nature of supervisory work and the level of authority required to be considered a supervisor under the Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the amount deposited was ordered to be released to the respondent.
( 1 ). Heard learned counsel for the parties.
( 2 ). In this case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent is not covered by the definition of the term "workman". His submission is based on the statement made by the respondent. Statement of the respondent indicates following duties of the petitioner:-
1. The respondent was supposed to check the data fed and entered in the computer by other persons. 2. After checking, he was supposed to correct it in the floppy, 3. He was supposed to process data for the purpose of preparing a report. 4. The report so processed was supposed to form basis of future planning of the concern.
( 3 ). It is not disputed that the salary of the petitioner ranged between Rs. 1. 800. 00 to Rs. 2,0021- and ultimately Rs. 2. 400. 00. The learned Labour Court took the view that since no evidence had been adduced on behalf of the management to show that the work performed by the workman was in any way supervisory in nature and it has been testified by the workman that he was basically doing the basic work of a clerical nature under the supervision and control of his seniors. Simply because the workman was getting basic pay of Rs. 2,400. 00 per month would not exclude him from the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" for short) and answered the reference accordingly and accepted the statement of claims made by the petitioner.
( 4 ). The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vinayak is that the respondent was working in supervisory and managerial capacity, for he was supposed to check, process and submit a report for future planning. Consequently, he was not an ordinary skilled labour who would fall within the definition of the term "workman". He submits that the moment it is admitted that he prepared report which formed basis of the planning, he goes out of the purview of the term "workman", for he was performing supervisory as well as managerial duty of advising the management for future planning. On his own admission, data which was being processed by the petitioner would form basis of future planning of the management.
( 5 ). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that simply because he was preparing report for the purpose of future planning, he would not fall within the definition of the term "workman". The learned counsel relies upon two judgments, namely, lloyds Bank Vs. Panna Lal Gupta. 1961 (1) LLJ 18 and Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. M/s. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. , 1984 Lab. I. C. 658 = AIR 1984 SC 914. In Ved Prakash Gupta vs. M/s. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. (supra ). The term "workman" was considered by the supreme Court in the context of the phrase "managerial or administrative capacity". Before proceeding further, it would be desirable to reproduce definition of workman as given in clause (s) of Section 2 of the Act, which reads as under-
(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 can 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 one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the na
