Industrial Dispute Act

The corresponding amendment as made by way Section 2A in I.D. Act is already available in section 2A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

Dear Kirti,

It is no where directed in the U.P.I.D. Act that the workmen can file an application before the learned Labour Court directly untill and unless a reference order is made by the state government.

yes, your are correct. this provision is made only in Industrial Disputes Act by way of amendment act 2010 but it has not been incorporated in U.P. I.D. Act till date.

So what is your opinion, can we file an application before the Labour court taking the plea of this ammendment in U.P. of where the U.P. I.D. Act is applicable.

no, the supreme court specifically held that provisions of where provisions of U.P. I.D. Act are applicable, the provisions of I.D. Act will not apply. You have to file application under Section 2A of the U.P.I.D. Act before the Conciliation Officer appointed under the U.P.I.D.Act for the area, where cause of action arose 

Can anyone guide me on coverage of worker definition..what is the status of Sernior Executive, Quality Controller and Security Officer ....Ajaay

there is no terms as worker in Industrial Disputes Act, the term worker has been defined in Factories Act. in case you are concerned with " workman " as defined in Industrial Disputes Act. . The workman is defined as follows.

     5*[(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, 957 (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.

However the limit  of Rs. 1600 has been extended to Rs. 10,000 by way amendment 2010

But the legal position of law is that the drawing of salary is not relevant for determination of  status of an employee as workman, it is only his nature of job, which determine his status whether a particular employee is workman or not. If the nature of job of an employee mainly of  manual,  unskilled,  skilled,  technical, operational,  clerical he is workman. Thus if an Executive is able to show his nature of job falls within the scope of  manual,  unskilled,  skilled,  technical, operational,  clerical, he is workman, similar  position is with Quality controler, but in my opinion the nature of job of Quality controller is of technical nature thus he workman but no doubt the nature of job of Security Officer is of Supervisory nature and in case his monthy salary is more than 10,000/- PM or more, he is not a workman.