The Fine Line: Interpretations of the Term 'Workman' Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Introduction – Industrial Disputes Act

The definition of the term ‘workman’ is considered a cornerstone of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’), as it sets out the scope of individuals entitled to the Act’s protections and mechanisms for dispute resolution. A tribunal’s jurisdiction to adjudicate an industrial dispute is contingent upon the dispute relating to an employee who qualifies as a ‘workman’ under the statute. This article delves into the intricacies of Section 2(s) of the Act, examining its statutory meaning, the legal fiction it creates, and the categories of persons explicitly excluded from its ambit, as interpreted through various judicial pronouncements.

Definition of the Term ‘Workman’

The definition of ‘workman’ is important because the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, aims at the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, which implies a difference between the employer and workmen. Therefore, a tribunal has the right to adjudicate an industrial dispute only when such a dispute relates to an employee who is a workman.

“Workman” as defined in Section 2(s) includes: Any person (including an apprentice) employed in an industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, supervisory, technical, operational, or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied and for any proceedings under this Act about 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

Who is subject to the Army Act, 1950, Air Force Act 1950, Navy Act 1957, or
Who is employed in the police service or as an officer/employee of a prison, or
Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding Rs. 10,000 per mensem),
or exercises either by the nature of duties or by reasons of powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.

The definition in Section 2(s) can be broadly understood in three distinct parts:

Statutory meaning of workman – Outlining the types of work and employment relationships covered.
Legal fiction – Extending the definition to include certain individuals whose employment has ceased due to a dispute.
Categories of persons excluded – Specifying individuals who, despite potentially meeting other criteria, are expressly not considered workmen.

‘Workman’ Status as per Statutory Meaning and Dominant Nature Test

The fundamental conditions for an individual to be classified as a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) include:

That he must be employed in an industry;
There must be employment of his by the employer; and
There must be a relationship between the employer and him as between employer and employee or master and servant.

An “apprentice” may also be called a workman. A workman employed on a “part-time basis” under the control and supervision of an employer can also be referred to as a workman, as held in the case of New Delhi Assurance Co. Ltd. v A. Sankaralingam (2008) 10 SCC 698.

I. The Dominant Nature of Duties Test

To ascertain whether an employee is a workman, there is a crucial test known as the ‘Dominant Nature of Duties Test’, which involves examining the basic or primary duties of the person and his dominant purpose of the employment. The designation of an employee holds not much importance, but the focus has to be on the nature of the duties. For instance, where the employee’s main function was highly clerical and whatever supervisory functions he had to discharge was merely incidental to the job with no power to initiate disciplinary action, the employee was held to be a ‘workman’, under the case of S.K. Maini v M/s. Carona Sahu Co., AIR 1994 SC 1824.

The Supreme Court in the case of Burma Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. India v Mangt. Staff Assn. (AIR 1971 SC 922), Laid down key principles:

The categories recognised by the definition (manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory) were exhaustive and an individual’s work must fall in one of those categories to be classified as a workman.
The exceptions become relevant only if a person first qualifies as a workman within one of the specified categories. It is incorrect to assume that any employee not falling under the exceptions is automatically a workman (e.g., ‘sales representatives’ may not be workmen).
If the duties of a person appears to fall in more than one category, for instance, part supervisory and part clerical, then his main work will determine the nature of his employment, notwithstanding that he incidentally does some other type of work, as held in the case of Anand Bazar Patrika Pvt. Ltd. v Workmen, 1960(18) FLR 186. The real test consists of the main or substantial work done by the employee.
Thus, if the main or substantial work is supervisory, then it would be held that the person was employed to do supervisory work even though he may also be doing some technical, clerical, or manual work. If, on the other hand, the supervisory work is incidental to the main or substantial work of any other type, such as clerical, manual, or technical, the employment would not be in a supervisory capacity.

II. Permissible Categories of Work

To qualify as a ‘workman’, a person’s job must fall into one of the following categories:

Manual: Any work which predominantly requires some physical exertion on the part of a person, e.g., a gardener looking after the gardens.
Unskilled: Work which is mundane or commonplace, and does not involve the application of any special skill, e.g. a conductor in a bus, a peon.
Skilled: Work involving practical/special knowledge, combined with the ability to apply it with dexterity e.g. a carpenter.Technical: Work which involves the application of scientific or technical knowledge e.g., doctors.
Operational: Work involving operation of some machine/device e.g. pilot.
Clerical: Work which is predominantly steno-type or routine and involves neither excessive mental or physical work, viz. writing ledgers, filing, correspondence, entering cash books, etc.

In the case of artists, it was held that ‘art’ involves one’s expression of creative talent and the other work apart from acting is only ancillary to the main work. Hence, the respondent artists working in Bharat Bhawan Trust, an institution engaged in promotion of art and preservation of artistic expression, were held to be “workmen” in the case of Bharat Bhawan Trust v Bharat Bhawan Artists’ Assn. (2001) 7 SCC 630.

In the case of Sonepat Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. v Ajit Singh (AIR 2005 SC 1050), it was held that the job of the employee must fall within one or other categories enumerated in Sec. 2(s) to classify him to be a workman. Merely showing that the employee had not been performing any managerial or supervisory duties does not ipso facto make him a workman. In this case, the respondent workman, possessing a law degree, appointed as a legal assistant, claimed to be a workman performing tasks of a “legal clerical nature”. It was held that such a job would not make him a workman under Sec. 2(s). The job of a clerk ordinarily implies stereotyped work without power of control or dignity or initiative, or creativity. The respondent’s work did not involve any such job, and his work involved creativity. The Court gave instances that ‘teachers’ serving in educational institutions, ‘chemists’ employed in a sugar mill, ‘gate sergeant’ in charge, and ward staff in a commercial educational institution, and a ‘welfare officer’ in a commercial educational institution, have not been held to be workmen.

III. Exclusions from the Definition of ‘Workman’

Section 2(s) explicitly excludes certain categories of persons, irrespective of the nature of their work or wages (unless a wage threshold is specified):

Persons subject to the Army Act, 1950, Air Force Act 1950, or Navy Act 1957.
- Persons employed in the police service or as an officer/employee of a prison.
- Persons employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity.
- Persons employed in a supervisory capacity who draw wages exceeding Rs. 10,000 per month or who, by the nature of their duties or vested powers, primarily exercise managerial functions.

Dismissed, Discharged, or Retrenched Persons

An important aspect of Section 2(s) is the legal fiction it creates. For any proceedings under the Act related to an industrial dispute, the definition of ‘workman’ will include any individual 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. This ensures that a past employee can still raise an industrial dispute concerning their termination, as affirmed in the cases of Gangaram Tiwary v. Guna (AIR 1963 M.P. 242) and Suresh, Colenman & Co. v. Dr. P.N. Gupta (1969).

Judicial Application & Specific Examples

The interpretation of the term ‘workman’ has been clarified by means of various judicial precedents and the principles discussed above.

I. Persons Held to be ‘Workman’:

Development Officer – A Development Officer working in a Life Insurance Corporation was held to be a workman. The court in the case of S.K. Verma v Mahesh Chandra (1983) 2 LLJ 492 (SC) held that the nature of duties performed by such development officers and the powers vested in them cannot be said to be engaged in any administrative or managerial work and hence were classified as workmen. Similarly, in the case of H.S. Chauhan v LIC (1982) Lab IC 1864, a Development Officer was held to be a workman. He had to perform routine, manual, mechanical, and clerical duties and had no supervisory duties.
Security Inspector – A Security Inspector deputed at the gate of LIC was held to be a workman in the case of Ved Prakash Gupta v M/s Delton Cables India (P) Ltd. (1984) 1 LLJ 546 (SC).
Accountants – Where a stenographer cum Accountant was appointed as assistant and was designated as group leader to look after the work of two other members of the group, the employee was held to be a workman. It was pointed out that where an employee is discharging multifarious duties, his primary and basic duties will determine whether he is a workman or not in the case of Arkal Govind Raj Rao v Ciba Geigy of India (1985) II LLJ 401 (SC).
Assistant Engineer/Medical Officer – An Assistant Engineer employed in a sugar factory, whose major part of the duties was not supervisory and his work was mostly technical, with no power to sanction leave or punish the workmen, would be classified as a workman as provided under M/s U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v Deputy Labour Commr., 1990 LIC 645.

A Medical Officer has been held to be a workman in the case of Dr. Suresh Kumar v UOI 1986 Lab IC 1516 (All). Thus, a doctor employed in a hospital would be a workman since his role was predominantly technical and he had no administrative powers.

Priest – In Kesavan Bhatt v Shree Ram Ambalram Trust (1990) 1 Lab LJ 192, the Kerala High Court held that a priest is not a workman. A pujari cannot be equated with a mere wage earner, and his services cannot be treated as manual or clerical, etc.
Other examples were the person was considered to be a workman includes: A Bank Accountant; Assistant Medical Officer, Class II in the Railways, as he performed technical work in the case of Dr. Surendra Kumar v UOI (1986) Lab IC 1516 (All.) (D.B.); Municipal Secretary whose duties were clerical as well as supervisory; Sub-editor of a newspaper; Proof-reader in a newspaper; A Pilot with Air India (i.e. commercial pilot); A nurse employed in a governmental hospital (as she performed skilled work); A dismissed/retrenched workman who wished to raise a dispute with his employer; A casual or temporary labourer; Inspectors and Salesman in the employment of the company as per the case of Western India Match Co v Workmen AIR 1964 SC 472; ‘Malis’ employed by Mill for looking after gardens attached with officer’s bungalows in the case of J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills v Badri Mali AIR 1964 SC 737.

II. Persons Held Not to be Workmen

Covenanted Officer of a company drawing more than Rs. 10,000/- as salary and entitled to the privileges of an officer.
Senior Assistant Editor of a newspaper (as in doing the editorial works he has to display qualities of initiative and independence) as held in the case of V.N.N. Sinha v Bihar Journals Ltd., AIR 1954 Pat.
Welfare Officer of Indian Aluminium Company (a Govt. of India Undertaking).
A practising lawyer engaged by a company on a retainer basis to appear before and advise the company before the Labour Court, as held in the case of Indian Sulphacid Industries Ltd. v Labour Court, Bhopal (1993) 1 LLJ 496 (P & H).
A Jail Superintendent [Exception (ii) to Sec. 2(s)].
Assistant Manager in a private firm (as his work is mainly of a managerial or administrative nature).
A stenographer attached to a Judge of the Delhi High Court (as he is not employed in an ‘industry’, the judiciary belongs to the realm of sovereign functions). Similarly, a typist employed to work in the District Court is not a workman.
Branch Manager of a Co-operative Bank.
A person working purely for honorary or gratuitous reasons (work must be in consideration of some remuneration).

Whether a Sales/ Medical Representative is considered a Workman?

The case of H.R. Adyanthaya v Sandoz (India) Ltd. [1994 SCC (S) 737] specifically addressed the confusion around the ‘medical representatives’ and whether they qualify as workmen under Section 2(s) or not. The Court examined its earlier decisions in May & Baker (India) Ltd. v Workmen (AIR 1967 SC 678) and Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distribution Co. Case (AIR 1971 SC 922).

In the May & Baker Case, a medical representative whose primary work was to canvass sales, with incidental clerical/manual work, was held not to be a workman. The Court clarified that not having supervisory duties or working under direction did not automatically make one a workman if the main duties were not manual or clerical.

In the Burmah Shell judgement, the court reinforced the views in the May & Baker Case, rejecting the argument that the definition of ‘workman’ was all-encompassing, meaning that every employee not falling under exceptions would be classified as a workman. The court highlighted that the specified categories (manual, supervisory, technical, clerical) were intended to limit the definition.

Hence, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that for a person to be a workman, their work must fall into one of the four types mentioned in the main body of the definition. It held that the work of promotion of sales is distinct from and independent of the types of work covered by Section 2(s). Therefore, a medical representative whose main duty was canvassing sales was not to be considered as a workman.

Conclusion – Industrial Disputes Act

The definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was always considered necessary for the enforcement and applicability of the Act and to redress the disputes arising between the employer and the workmen. Whilst the statutory language provides a foundational understanding, the interpretation of the term ‘workman’ has been drastically shaped by judicial precedents over the years. The test of the ‘dominant nature of duties’ remains critical, highlighting that the interpretation of the term ‘workman’ would depend upon the actual work performed over a mere designation, and that the work falls within the specified categories of manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory.

The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, also incorporates a necessary legal fiction, extending the definition to include dismissed, discharged, or retrenched persons, thereby ensuring their access to dispute resolution mechanisms. Concurrently, it explicitly excludes certain categories, such as defence personnel, police, prison staff, and those primarily engaged in managerial or administrative roles, or supervisory roles exceeding specified wage thresholds and managerial functions.

Thu,s such interplay of different tests and landmark judicial precedents, emphasize the nuanced approach required to determine the ‘workman’ status, and ultimately, a precise understanding of Section 2(s) is indispensable for both employers and employees to navigate the rights and obligations enshrined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ensuring effective and equitable industrial relations.

About Us

Corrida Legal is a boutique corporate & employment law firm serving as a strategic partner to businesses by helping them navigate transactions, fundraising-investor readiness, operational contracts, workforce management, data privacy, and disputes. The firm provides specialized and end-to-end corporate & employment law solutions, thereby eliminating the need for multiple law firm engagements. We are actively working on transactional drafting & advisory, operational & employment-related contracts, POSH, HR & data privacy-related compliances and audits, India-entry strategy & incorporation, statutory and labour law-related licenses, and registrations, and we defend our clients before all Indian courts to ensure seamless operations.

We keep our client’s future-ready by ensuring compliance with the upcoming Indian Labour codes on Wages, Industrial Relations, Social Security, Occupational Safety, Health, and Working Conditions – and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. With offices across India including Gurgaon, Mumbai and Delhi coupled with global partnerships with international law firms in Dubai, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the USA, we are the preferred law firm for India entry and international business setups. Reach out to us on LinkedIn or contact us at contact@corridalegal.com/+91-9211410147 in case you require any legal assistance. Visit our publications page for detailed articles on contemporary legal issues and updates.

The Fine Line: Interpretations of the Term ‘Workman’ Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947