LENIN KUMAR RAY versus M/S EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2303, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Unknown
Segment: Issues
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2303 : 2024 INSC 802
Lenin Kumar Ray 
v. 
M/s Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd.
(Civil Appeal No. 11709 of 2024)
21 October 2024
[Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the appellant employee falls within the definition of 
“workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 
was illegally terminated from service in violation of procedure laid 
down in law.
Headnotes†
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(s) – Meaning of 
“workman” – Determinative factor is the principal duties and 
functions performed by an employee in the establishment and 
not merely the designation of his post – Onus of proving the 
nature of employment rests on the person claiming to be a 
“workman”:
Held: To qualify as a “workman” under s.2(s) of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947, a person must be engaged in any work 
of manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or 
supervisory nature – However, the said provision excludes four 
classes of employees from its ambit including a person employed in 
a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs.10,000/- after 
amendment (Rs.1,600/- before amendment of 2010) per month 
or exercises functions mainly of a managerial nature. [Para 11]
The onus of proving the nature of employment rests on the person 
claiming to be a “workman” within the definition of section 2(s) of 
the I.D. Act – The employee was appointed as Junior Engineer 
(E&C) in 1997 under Group 3 (Admn) for a
salary of Rs. 4,761.75 
per month – Thereafter, the employee was promoted as Assistant 
Engineer (E&C) in Group 2A (Admn) with a revised salary of  
Rs. 6,008.79 per month – The employee deposed that he was 
not an executive cadre employee and there were senior officers 
to supervise and control his work – Admittedly, the employee was 
supervising the work of two juniors who were working under him – In 
* Author
2304
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the absence of any concrete material to demonstrate the nature of 
duties discharged by the employee, the employment orders issued 
by the management will have to be taken into consideration and 
as per the same, the employee was appointed as Junior Engineer 
and was promoted as Assistant Engineer, on the administrative 
side – Even according to the employee, the nature of duties and 
functions discharged by him was of supervisory – As such, applying 
the pre-amended version of Section 2(s) and since the employee 
was drawing salary of more than Rs. 1,600, the employee is not 
a “workman” under Section 2(s) and is not covered by provisions 
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [Para 12 to 16]
Termination of employment – No violation of procedure by 
the management:
Held: In terms of clause 14 of the appointment letter, the employee 
was required to be paid one month salary in lieu of notice – The 
employee was relieved from duty with effect from 08.10.2003 and 
he was issued with a cheque towards one month salary in lieu of 
notice – Admittedly, the employee accepted the said cheque and 
encashed the same – Hence, there is no violation of procedure 
on the part of the management in terminating the services of the 
employee. [Para 17]
Since the employee is not covered by provisions of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947, the order of High Court setting aside the 
award of the Labour Court to reinstate the employee in
service 
and pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu of back wages is 
affirmed. [Para 18]
Case Law Cited
K.C.P. Employees Association v. K.C.P. Ltd [1978] 2 SCR 608 : 
(1978) 2 SCC 42; Southern Ispat Ltd v. State of Kerala [2004] 
3 SCR 570 : (2004) 4 SCC 68; Sharad Kumar v. NCT of Delhi 
[2002] 2 SCR 1057 : (2002) 4 SCC 490; S.K. Maini v. Carona Sahu 
Co. Ltd [1994] 2 SCR 333 : (1994) 3 SCC 510; Ananda Bazar 
Patrika (P) Ltd v. Workmen [1964] 3 SCR 601 : (1970) 3 SCC 248; 
Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya 
[2013] 9 SCR 1 : (2013) 10 SCC 324; Jasmer Singh v. State of 
Haryana (2015) 4 SCC 458 – referred to.
List of Acts
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2305
Lenin Kumar Ray v. M/s Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd.
List of Keywords
Section 2(s), Section 25F, Section 25G, Section 25H of Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947; Workman; Nature of duties discharged; 
Supervisory role; Terms of employment; Appointment order.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11709 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2022 of the High Court 
of Orissa at Cuttack in WPC No. 2083 of 2011
With
Civil Appeal No. 11710 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Sanjay Ghosh, Vipin Sanghi, Sr. Advs., Fidel Sebastian, Rishi 
Nandy, Mohit Gard, Ms. Amiy Shukla, Shakti Vardhan, Ms. Sheena 
Taqui, Ms. Akansha Saini, Shiv Vinayak Gupta, Mrs. Bina Gupta, 
Mohit Garg, Zulfiker Ali P. S, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
R. Mahadevan, J.
Leave granted.
2.	
These two appeals arise from an order dated 04.04.2022 passed by 
the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack1 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2083 
of 2011, whereby, the High Court partly allowed the said writ petition 
filed by M/s. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd2 challenging the 
award dated 22.09.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar3 
in I.D. Case No.27 of 2007. By the impugned order, the High Court set 
aside the award of the Labour Court to the extent that the employee 
is to be reinstated and to be paid compensation of Rs.75,000/- in 
lieu of back wages, while upholding the finding of the Labour Court 
1
Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”
2	
For short, “the management” 
3	
Hereinafter shortly referred to as “the Labour Court”
2306
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
that the employee falls under the definition of “workman” as given 
in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.4
3.	
Feeling aggrieved and being dissatisfied with the respective portion 
of the impugned order of the High Court, both the parties have 
preferred the instant appeals. 
4.	
A few facts which are necessary for disposal of both the appeals, 
are as follows: 
The management is a newspaper establishment publishing a daily 
newspaper in English viz., New Indian Express having its publication 
unit at Bhubaneswar. The employee was initially appointed as Junior 
Engineer (Electronics and Communication)5 by the management on 
07.06.1997 and was subsequently, confirmed in the said post on 
13.07.1998. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant 
Engineer (E&C) with effect from 01.05.2000 and was regularised in the 
said post with effect from 01.05.2001. While so, he was relieved from 
service on 08.10.2003, by paying a sum of Rs.6,995.65 towards one 
month salary in lieu of notice. Aggrieved by the same, he approached 
the Labour authorities, who referred the matter for conciliation. After 
failure of the conciliation and based on the opinion of the appropriate 
authority that an industrial dispute exists between the parties, a 
reference was made, which culminated in I.D. Case No.27 of 2007, in 
which, the Labour Court passed an award on 22.09.2010, reinstating 
the employee in service along with
compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu 
of back wages, after having held that the employee was a “workman” 
in terms of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. Challenging the same, the 
management filed the aforesaid writ petition, which was partly allowed 
by the High Court, in the terms as already stated in paragraph 2 supra. 
Therefore, the present Civil Appeals by both the parties. 
5.	
The learned senior counsel appearing for the employee contended 
that the employee falls within the ambit of “workman” as per section 
2(s) of the Act; he was terminated by the management without any 
reason; he was not given any opportunity before such termination nor 
there was any contract of service that his services will be terminated 
on 08.10.2003; and thus, there was a clear violation of provision of 
law in terminating the services of the employee. Taking note of the 
4	
For short, “the I.D. Act”
5	
For short, “E&C”
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2307
Lenin Kumar Ray v. M/s Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd.
same, the Labour Court rightly passed the award in setting aside 
such illegal termination and directing the management to reinstate 
the employee in service. Without properly appreciating the same, 
the High Court set aside the part of the award viz., direction to the 
management to reinstate the employee in service with payment of 
lumpsum compensation in lieu of back wages, by the order impugned 
herein, which will have to be set aside. 
6.	
Drawing our attention to the judgments of this Court compiled in 
the form of typed set of papers, the learned senior counsel for the 
employee made the following submissions:
(i)	
In Industrial Law, interpreted and applied in the perspective of 
Part IV of the Constitution, the benefit of reasonable doubt on 
law and facts, if there be such doubt, must go to the weaker 
section, Labour;6 
(ii)	
Concurrent findings of facts rendered by the Courts below 
cannot be interfered with by the writ Court;7 
(iii)	 The determining factor for a person to be qualified as “workman” 
as defined under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act is the nature of work 
done by him and not merely on the designation of his post.8 
Whether or not an employee is a “workman” under section 2(s) 
of the I.D. Act is required to be determined with reference to his 
principal nature of duties and functions; and the designation of 
an employee is not of much importance and what is important 
is
the nature of duties being performed by the employee;9 
(iv)	 Merely having a junior does not make an employee a supervisor 
or managerial cadre;10 and
(v)	
In cases of wrongful / illegal termination of service, reinstatement 
with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule;11 
and since the order of termination is void ab initio, the workman 
is entitled to full back wages.12
6	
K.C.P. Employees Association v. K.C.P. Ltd (1978) 2 SCC 42
7	
Southern Ispat Ltd v. State of Kerala (2004) 4 SCC 68
8	
Shard Kumar v. NCT of Delhi (2002) 4 SCC 490 
9	
S.K.Maini v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd (1994) 3 SCC 510
10	
Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd v. Workmen (1970) 3 SCC 248
11	
Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013) 10 SCC 324
12	
Jasmer Singh v. State of Haryana (2015) 4 SCC 458
2308
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
By making the above submissions, the learned counsel prayed to 
allow the appeal filed by the employee and dismiss the appeal filed 
by the management and consequently, direct the management to 
reinstate the employee in service with full back wages.
7.	
It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the management 
that the employee was discharging his duties initially as Junior 
Engineer (E&C) in group 3 (Admn) and thereafter as Assistant 
Engineer (E&C) in group 2A (Admn); the nature of the work performed 
by him was in the supervisory capacity; and his total emolument in the 
post of Assistant Engineer (E&C) as on 01.05.2001 was Rs.6805.45; 
and he was terminated from service on 08.10.2003 as his service 
was no longer required for the management. While so, he does not 
qualify to be a “workman” within the meaning of section 2(s) of the 
I.D. Act. It is further contended by the learned counsel that at the 
time of termination of the employee i.e., on 08.10.2003, the statutory 
requirement for a person to be classified as a “workman” in the I.D. 
Act was a salary of not exceeding Rs.1,600/- per month. However, 
the High Court proceeded to apply Amendment Act 24 of 2010 which 
came into force with effect from 15.09.2010, wherein, the statutory 
requirement for a person employed in the supervisory capacity to be 
qualified as a “workman” was a salary of not exceeding Rs.10,000/- 
per month, and erroneously upheld
the finding of the Labour Court 
that the employee was a “workman” as defined under section 2(s) 
of the I.D. Act. Therefore, the learned counsel sought to allow the 
appeal filed by the management, by setting aside the order of the 
High Court to that extent. 
8.	
Continuing further, the learned senior counsel for the management 
submitted that the employee was appointed as Junior Engineer 
(E&C) in Group 3 (Admn) with a monthly pay of Rs.4761.75 by 
the management on 07.06.1997 and clause 14 of the appointment 
letter clearly indicated that after confirmation, the termination of 
service would require one month notice period or one month salary 
in lieu of notice by either of the parties. That apart, the employee 
was given promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (E&C) on 
25.05.2000 and his services as Asst. Engineer (E&C) in group 2A 
(Admn) were regularized with effect from 01.05.2001 with a total 
pay of Rs.6,805.45 per month; and it was categorically stated in 
the confirmation letter dated 30.04.2001 that all other terms and 
conditions mentioned in the Appointment Order dated 07.06.1997
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2309
Lenin Kumar Ray v. M/s Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd.
shall continue to apply. In the light of the rules of the company and 
the terms of the employment orders, the management relieved the 
employee from duty by paying one month salary in lieu of notice 
on 08.10.2003, which was accepted and also encashed by the 
employee. Hence, there is no procedural violation of law on the part 
of the management in terminating the services of the employee. 
Thus, according to the learned counsel, the order of the High 
Court setting aside the award of the Labour Court to the extent of 
reinstating the employee with compensation in lieu of back wages, 
requires no interference by this Court.
9.	
We have given due consideration to the submissions made by the 
learned senior counsel appearing for both parties and carefully 
perused the materials on record.
10.	 At the outset, it is pertinent to point out that the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947, was enacted by the legislature to settle the industrial 
disputes. It was brought with the object to ensure social justice to 
both the employers and employees and advance the progress of 
industry by bringing about the existence of harmony and cordial 
relationship between the parties. 
11.	 Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act defines “workman”, which is quoted below 
for ready reference: 
“2(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, 1957 (62 of 1957); or 
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an 
officer or other employee of a prison; or
2310
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or 
administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, 
draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees]13 
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.” 
As per the above provision, a person to be qualified as a “workman” 
has to do any work of manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, 
clerical or supervisory in nature. But, the latter part of the section 
excludes four classes of employees including a person employed in 
a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs.10,000/- after 
amendment (Rs.1,600/- before amendment) per month or exercises 
functions mainly of a managerial nature. In this legal backdrop, let 
us first examine, whether the employee falls within the definition of 
“workman”.
12.	 According to the employee, he comes within the meaning of “workman” 
as given in section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and the management without 
following the legal procedure, relieved him from service abruptly and 
hence, the same is illegal termination. On the other hand, it was the 
case of the management that the nature of the duties and functions 
performed by the employee was in the supervisory capacity and he 
was drawing a salary of above Rs.1,600/- and therefore, he does 
not belong to the category of “workmen”. To prove
their respective 
claims, the employee and the Senior Manager of the management 
were examined as W.W.1 and M.W.1; and Exts.W1 to W5 and Exts.A 
to D were marked before the Labour Court. 
13.	 Evidently, the employee was appointed as Junior Engineer (E&C) 
with effect from 07.06.1997 under Group 3 (Admn) with a salary of 
Rs.4761.75 per month. Clause 14 of the appointment order issued 
by the management makes it clear that after confirmation of the 
job, the termination of service will be by one month’s notice or one 
month’s salary in lieu of notice by either side. It is not in dispute that 
the posting of the employee in the cadre of Junior Engineer was 
13	
Substituted by Act 24 of 2010, S.2, for “one thousand six hundred rupees” (w.e.f 15-09-2010)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2311
Lenin Kumar Ray v. M/s Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd.
confirmed with effect from 07.06.1998 vide letter dated 13.07.1998. 
As per the letter dated 25.05.2000 of the management, the employee 
was promoted as Assistant Engineer (E&C) in Group 2A (Admn) with 
effect from 01.05.2000 and his revised salary was Rs.6008.79 per 
month. The services of the employee as Assistant Engineer were 
confirmed with effect from 01.05.2001 vide letter dated 30.04.2001 
and it was categorically stated in the said letter that all other terms 
and conditions mentioned in the appointment order dated 07.06.1997 
shall continue to hold good. Vide letter dated 08.10.2003, it was 
informed that the services of the employee were no longer required 
by the management and hence, he was relieved from duty forthwith.
14.	 During the course of examination, the employee deposed as W.W.1 
that he was not an executive cadre employee and there were 
senior officers to supervise and control his work. But, in the cross-
examination, he asserted that he was supervising the work of two 
juniors who were working under him. According to M.W.1- Senior 
Manager of the management, the employee was an executive of the 
management and the management appointed two Junior Engineers 
and their works were being supervised by the said employee. 
15.	 The law is well settled that the determinative factor for “workman” 
covered under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, is the principal duties and
functions performed by an employee in the establishment and not 
merely the designation of his post. Further, the onus of proving the 
nature of employment rests on the person claiming to be a “workman” 
within the definition of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. 
16.	 In the present case, there is no specific document adduced relating 
to the actual work and functions performed by the employee. In 
the absence of any concrete material to demonstrate the nature of 
duties discharged by the employee, the employment orders issued 
by the management will have to be taken into consideration and as 
per the same, the employee was appointed as Junior Engineer and 
was promoted as Assistant Engineer, on the administrative side. It 
is the evidence of M.W.1 that the employee was supervising the 
work of two junior Engineers, who were working under him, which 
was also admitted by the employee in his cross examination, as 
W.W.1. Even according to the employee, the nature of duties and 
functions discharged by him was of supervisory. As such, applying 
the pre-amended provision of section 2(s), since the employee was
2312
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
terminated from service on 08.10.2003 and was drawing salary of 
more than Rs.1,600/-, he does not come within the definition of 
“workman”. Therefore, we hold that the employee is not a “workman” 
as defined under section 2(s) and is not covered by the provisions 
of the I.D. Act. In view of the same, the order of the High Court 
upholding the finding of the Labour Court that the employee was 
a “workman” within the definition of post-amended section 2(s), is 
liable to be set aside.
17.	 As regards the grant of reinstatement of the employee in service and 
payment of compensation in lieu of back wages by the Labour Court, it 
appears to us that in terms of clause 14 of the appointment letter, the 
employee was required to be paid one month salary in lieu of notice. 
As is evident from the letter dated 08.10.2003 of the management, the 
employee was relieved from duty with effect from that date; and he 
was issued with a cheque bearing No.019345 for Rs.6995.85 drawn 
on UT1 Bank Ltd, Bhubaneswar, towards one month salary in lieu of 
notice, as per the rules of company and in terms of clause 14 of the 
appointment order issued by the management. It is an admitted fact 
that without any objection, the employee accepted the said cheque 
and encashed the same. Hence, there is no violation of procedure 
on the part of the management in terminating the services of the 
employee. As already held above, the employee is not a
“workman” 
as covered under section 2(s) and hence, the provisions of the I.D. 
Act do not apply to him. Resultantly, the contention of the learned 
senior counsel for the employee qua violation of section 25F coupled 
with sections 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act, ordering reinstatement 
with full back wages as normal rule, etc., cannot be countenanced 
by us. Though we are in agreement with the principles laid down in 
the citations relied on by the learned counsel for the employee, they 
do not come to rescue the employee as the facts of the same are 
distinguishable. Thus, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the 
order of the High Court setting aside the award of the Labour Court 
which directed reinstatement of the employee along with payment 
of compensation in lieu of back wages and hence, the same does 
not call for any interference by us. 
18.	 In the light of the foregoing findings, we set aside the order of the 
High Court confirming the finding of the Labour Court to the extent 
that the employee was a “workman” within the meaning of section 
2(s) of the I.D. Act; and we affirm the same, insofar as setting aside
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2313
Lenin Kumar Ray v. M/s Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd.
the award of the Labour Court to reinstate the employee in service 
and pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu of back wages.
19.	 Accordingly, the Appeal filed by the employee stands dismissed and 
the Appeal filed by the management stands allowed. There is no order 
as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Civil Appeal No. 11709 of 2024 dismissed. 
Civil Appeal No. 11710 of 2024 allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Raghav Bhatia, Hony. Associate Editor 
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)