Case: Somnath Tulshiram Galande Vs. Presiding Officer, 2Nd Labour Court, Pune &amp; Others

the work of the Quality Control Supervisor directly and the line inspectors working in shift indirectly through the Quality Control Supervisor, take decisions, decide the parameters for the quality check up and analyse the drawings received from the customers.7. This was the documentary and oral evidence relied upon by the Labour Court to arrive at a finding that the appellant did not satisfy the ingredients of being a `workman and thus was incapacitated from raising an, industrial dispute. It is a settled principle of law that the onus lies upon the workman to prove that he satisfies the essential ingredients of being a workman and, therefore, could raise an industrial dispute. This is a mixed question of fact and law and unless the finding arrived at by the Labour Court was patently perverse or contrary to law, this Court could hardly disturb the findings of facts in a letters patent appeal.8. In the case of All India Reserve Bank Employees Association and Another v. Reserve Bank of India and Another, AIR 1966 SC 305 : 1965-II-LLJ-175, the Supreme Court while approving the findings recorded by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Ford Motor Co. of India Ltd. v. Ford Motors Staff Union, 1953-II-LLJ-444 held thus:"... the question whether a particular workman is a supervisor within or without the definition of `workman is "ultimately a question of fact, at least one of mixed fact and law..." and "will really depend upon the nature of the industry, the type of work in which he is engaged, the organizational set up of the particular unit of industry and like factor."9. The definition of `workman under Section 2 (s) is very wide in its terms and specifically excludes the person who works in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding Rs. 1600/- per month and exercises either the nature of duties attached to the Officer or by reason of the power vested in him functions mainly in a managerial capacity. The Supreme Court in the case of Anand Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. v. workmen, (1970) 3 SCC 248: 1969-1I-LLJ-670 held as under:"The question, whether a person is employed in a supervisory capacity or on clerical work, in our opinion, depends upon whether the main and principal duties carried out by him are those of a supervisory character, or of a nature carried out by a clerk. If a person is mainly doing supervisory work, but, incidentally or for a fraction of the time, also does some clerical work, it would have to be held that he is employed in supervisory capacity; and, conversely, if the main work done is of clerical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory duties are also carried out incidentally or as a small fraction of the work done by him will not convert his employment as a clerk into one in supervisory capacity."10. Similarly, in S.K. Maini v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd., AIR 1994 SC 1824 : (1994) 3 SCC 510 : 1994-II-LLJ-1153, the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 held as under:"After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that whether or not an employee is a workman under Section 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 straitjacket 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 workman 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 employee concerned 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 Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act."11. The appellant in the present case had multifarious duties and most of his duties were supervisory and managerial. He had the power and capacity to take decisions, supervise work of others and was also responsible for quality control of the products being manufactured. The character and nature of his duties while seen in the light of the documentary and oral evidence led by the parties, it can be concluded that the appellant was not a `workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act. Looking into the admission of the workman and specific language of Exhibit 29 and the terms and conditions of his appointment, it is difficult to arrive at any conclusion other than the one arrived at by the Labour Court and the learned single Judge in the impugned order.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It is a settled principle of law that the onus lies upon the workman to prove that he satisfies the essential ingredients of being a workman and, therefore, could raise an industrial dispute. This is a mixed question of fact and law and unless the finding arrived at by the Labour Court was patently perverse or contrary to law, this Court could hardly disturb the findings of facts in a letters patent appeal.8. In the case of All India Reserve Bank Employees Association and Another v. Reserve Bank of India and Another, AIR 1966 SC 305   :the Supreme Court while approving the findings recorded by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Ford Motor Co.  of India Ltd. v. Ford Motors Staff Union,held thus:"... the question whether a particular workman is a supervisor within or without the definition of `workman is "ultimately a question of fact, at least one of mixed fact and law..." and "will really depend upon the nature of the industry, the type of work in which he is engaged, the organizational set up of the particular unit of industry and like factor."9. The definition of `workman under Section 2 (s) is very wide in its terms and specifically excludes the person who works in a  supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding Rs. 1600/per month and exercises either the nature of duties attached to the Officer or by reason of the power vested in him functions mainly in a managerial capacity. The Supreme Court in the case of Anand Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. v. workmen, (1970) 3 SCC 248:held as under:"The question, whether a person is employed in a supervisory capacity or on clerical work, in our opinion, depends upon whether the main and principal duties carried out by him are those of a supervisory character, or of a nature carried out by a clerk. If a person is mainly doing supervisory work, but, incidentally or for a fraction of the time, also does some clerical work, it would have to be held that he is employed in supervisory capacity; and, conversely, if the main work done is of clerical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory duties are also carried out incidentally or as a small fraction of the work done by him will not convert his employment as a clerk into one in supervisory capacity."10. Similarly, in S.K. Maini v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd., AIR 1994 SC 1824   : (1994) 3 SCC 510   :the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 held as under:"After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that whether or not an employee is a workman under Section 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 straitjacket 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 workman 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 employee concerned 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 Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act."11. The appellant in the present case had multifarious duties and most of his duties were supervisory and managerial. He had the power and capacity to take decisions, supervise work of others and was also responsible for quality control of the products being manufactured. The character and nature of his duties while seen in the light of the documentary and oral evidence led by the parties, it can be concluded that the appellant was not a `workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act. Looking into the admission of the workman and specific language of Exhibit 29 and the terms and conditions of his appointment, it is difficult to arrive at any conclusion other than the one arrived at by the Labour Court and the learned single Judge in the impugned order.