supervisor
varadha
(Querist) 11 July 2008
This query is : Resolved
sir,sec2(s)of indian labour law defines that a labour may get work on the following category
(1)manual
(2)clerical
(3)skilled or unskilled
(4)operational
(5)supervisor
(6)technical.
If a person comes under any one of the following descrition work mode than the person should be termed as a labour.But on the part of supervisor there is a provision that a person who gets a salary of more than Rs.1600/month as a salary means then the person didn't comes under the term labour.By keeping this salary slab supervisors are likely affected due to thIS provision.Nowadays no one get the salary of Rs.1600(it is quiet low).But whats the reason for keeping this salary slab?But on other five category there is no salary provision,
KamalNayanSaxena
(Expert) 12 July 2008
Whether or not an employee is a workman under S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is required to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties and functions. Such question is required to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record and it is not possible to lay down any strait-jacket formula which can decide the dispute as to the real nature of duties and functions being performed by an employee in all cases. When an employee is employed to do the types of work enumerated in the definition of work-man under Section 2(s), there is hardly any difficulty in treating him as a workman under the appropriate classification but in the complexity of industrial or commercial organisations quite a large number of employees are often required to do more than one kind of work. In such cases, it becomes necessary to determine under which classification the employee will fall for the purpose of deciding whether he comes within the definition of workman or goes out of it. The designation of an employee is not of much importance and what is important is the nature of duties being performed by the employee. The determinative factor is the main duties of the concerned employee and not some works incidentally done. In other words, what is, in substance, the work which employee does or what in substance he is employed to do. Viewed from this angle, if the employee is mainly doing supervisory work but incidentally or for a fraction of time also does some manual or clerical work, the employee should be held to be doing supervisory works. Conversely, if the main work is of manual, clerical or of technical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory or other work is also done by the employee incidentally or only a small fraction of working time is devoted to some supervisory works, the employee will come within the purview of workman as defined in S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
