Even a supervisor and irrespective of the salary is a workman

>>>Even a supervisor (by designation: even Manager, Officer) and irrespective of the salary is a workman.

>>> It is nobody's case that the workers are getting a living wage which is an ideal wage.

>>>The Wage Debate Should Be About Poverty Not Jobs.

>>>There are enactments that provide or decline benefits according to lower paid, higher paid employees amongst workers/workmen………..e.g. Payment of Bonus Act.

A ‘Supervisor’ that might be higher paid is also covered by the definition of, ‘Workman’ as in, The Industrial Disputes Act.’

>>> Neither the appellation to the post, nor the salary, would decide as to whether the employee is covered within the definition of ‘workman’.So an employee that is designated as a Supervisor (or even Manager, Officer or even who signed as Director as in some case that landed up in court of law) may also covered by the, definition of, ‘Workman’ as in, The Industrial Disputes Act.’

Name or designation given to the post is not conclusive on the issue.

>>> Determining employee is a ‘Workman’::: is a mixed question of fact and law.

>>> The employers and attorneys of employers in Line management /Human Resources/Legal cells have strived to confuse between:

Supervisor: Not supervising the work of others.

Supervisor: Performing duties of supervisory nature.

The invariable stand has been to claim that targeted employee does not enjoy the protection and umbrella of Labor Laws enacted in Republic of India, so as to deny reinstatement with consequential benefits/back wages, damages…………….. 

However the employee might still be covered within the purview of Labor Laws irrespective of ostentatious designation adorned upon the employee, by employer.

>>> Central Government Act

Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

2. Definitions.

(s) 5 "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 one thousand six hundred 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 managerial nature.

>>> Merely because the clerks were doing the work of checking the accounts in Audit Department, they cannot be held to be supervisors.

Name or designation given to the post is not conclusive on the issue.

>>> Mere designation of an employee is not of any consequence for the purposes of determining whether he is a workman or not.  What are of importance are the nature of his duties, particularly his primary duties or his basic duties and the dominant purpose of his employment.

>>> The stand of courts of law and judiciary has been that: Courts have to look beyond glorified designations assigned by Managements and to examine the nature of duties.

>>> Thus the employee, while in employment, should be careful about his written comments in communications sent by him while in employment, duties and actions being recorded in employment related records with employer and must also download the nature of his duties in practice and on record.

To read the full article: Click here