1. Termination of service of a shop manager — Dispute over status as workman under Section 2(s), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Challenge to reinstatement award. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 327
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G. N. RAY, JJ.
S. K. Maini, Appellant
Versus
M/s. Carona Sahu Company Limited and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1581 of 1994 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 1324 of 1993),
D/-8-3-1994.
Important Points
Whether an employee is a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is determined by the principal nature of their duties, not their designation. If the predominant functions are administrative or managerial, the employee is not a workman, regardless of any incidental clerical or supervisory tasks performed.
Subject
Industrial Disputes - Workman Status
Act Referred
Headnote
Industrial Disputes Act - Section 2(s) - Civil Appeal - Appeal is Directed against Judgment - Dispute for Adjudication - Allegation of Misconduct - Service Terminated - Appellant was working as Shop Manager/ In charge of respondent-Company - On an allegation of misconduct against appellant, domestic enquiry was caused by the respondent Company and by order service of the appellant was terminated. On September 28, 1981, Government of Punjab referred the following dispute for adjudication to Labor Court "whether termination of service of Shri S. K. Maini is justified and in order? If not, to what relief and amount of compensation is he entitled – Held, High Court was justified in holding that (sic) was not a workman under S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the aforesaid facts, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether or not domestic enquiry had been properly conducted or the Enquiring Officer had acted with bias. It is also not necessary to decide for the purpose of the disposal of the appeal as to whether or not the Company was entitled to lead fresh evidence in support of the domestic enquiry before the Labour Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without, however, any order as to Cost - Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
A.S.CHAHAL, ASHOK MATHUR, G.B.PAI, PAVAN MUTNEJA, S.JANANI, SANJAY SARIN, Sarjit Singh
A.S.CHAHAL, ASHOK MATHUR, G.B.PAI, PAVAN MUTNEJA, S.JANANI, SANJAY SARIN, Sarjit Singh
Table of Contents
2. Whether the employee's principal duties were clerical or managerial — Validity of domestic enquiry regarding legal representation and bias of the enquiring officer. (Para 4 , 7 , 8 )
3. Determination of workman status depends on the principal nature of duties rather than designation — Analysis of specific administrative responsibilities held by the shop manager. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. An employee is not a workman under Section 2(s), Industrial Disputes Act, if their principal functions are administrative or managerial, regardless of incidental clerical tasks. (Para 9 , 11 )
5. How is the status of a workman determined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act?
Status is determined by the principal nature of the duties and functions performed, not by the employee's designation. If the main work is manual, clerical, or technical, the employee is a workman, even if some supervisory work is performed incidentally. (Para 9 )
6. What distinguishes managerial and administrative functions from supervisory functions in the context of the Industrial Disputes Act?
Managerial and administrative roles generally involve positions of command or decision-making authority. While supervisory roles may also exclude an employee from being a workman, this depends on whether they exceed specific monetary salary limits defined in the Act. (Para 10 , 11 )
7. Does the lack of power to appoint or dismiss employees automatically mean a person is not a manager?
No. The power to employ or dismiss is not the sole criterion for determining managerial status. In larger organizations, such powers may reside with superior officers, but a local manager may still perform managerial functions within their specific unit. (Para 11 )
Judgment
G. N. RAY, J.:- Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 27,1992 passed by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing in limine Letters Patent Appeal No. 935 of 1992. The said Letters Patent Appeal was preferred against the judgment dated August 11, 1992 passed by the Single Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4410 of 1986. By the aforesaid judgment, the Writ Petition moved by the respondent M/s. Carona Sahu Company Limited was allowed and the award of the Labour Court Jalandhar dated April 21, 1986 in Reference No. 389 of 1981 directing the respondent Company to reinstate the appellant Shri S. K. Maini with full backwages was set aside by the High Court.
3. The appellant Shri S. K. Maini was working as the Shop Manager/ In charge of the respondent-Company M/ s. Carona Sahu Company Limited. On an allegation of misconduct against the appellant, a domestic enquiry was caused by the respondent Company and by order dated March 12,1981 the service of the appellant was terminated. On September 28, 1981, Government of Punjab referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Jalandhur; "whether the termination of service of Shri S. K. Maini is justified and in order? If not, to what relief and amount of compensation is he entitled?"
4. Before the Labour Court a preliminary objection was raised by the respondent-Company as to the maintainability of the said reference by contending that Shri S. K. Maini was not a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because being a shop Manager/In charge of the shop, he had been discharging mainly managerial and administrative functions and had been supervising the works of other employees subordinate to him for running the said shop and even if he was a Supervisor at the relevant time. Shri S. K. Maini was drawing a salary of more than Rs. 500/ - per month. Hence, he could not be held to be a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the reference was not maintainable and Shri Maini was not entitled to get any relief from the Labour Court.
5. The Labour Court, Jalandhar, inter alia came to the finding that although Shri Maini was a shop Manager/ In charge of the shop but his duties were mainly clerical and he had no independent authority to appoint or discharge the employees and to charge-sheet them and his functions could not be held mainly to be supervisory or managerial. Accordingly, Shri Maini was a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court also came to the finding that the domestic enquiry was not properly conducted against him and reasonable opportunity to defend in the domestic enquiry was not given to Shri Maini by not allowing Shri Maini to be represented by a lawyer. The Labour Court also held that the enquiring officer Shri Iqbal Singh was the Standing Counsel of the respondent-Company for disciplinary action to be taken against the employees of the Company. The said Iqbal Singh an advocate used to be engaged to contest the claims of the concerned workmen of the company in various legal proceedings. Such Standing Counsel was likely to have a bias in favour of the Company which was his master and consequently prejudice against the concerned employee. It should, therefore, be held that he lacked impartiality and objectivity to Judge the case of the concerned workman. Accordingly, the finding recorded by such officer against Shri Maini was not fair and proper. It may be noted here that the Labour Court refused to grant permission to the management to prove the case of the Company of a bona fide action before the Labour Court by leading independent evidence on the ground that such opportunity would tantamount to permitting the management to improve upon its evidence already adduced and the same was bound to cause harassment to the concerned workman. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court directed for reinstatement of Sh
