B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 5 Labour Law I 2014 Dec Question Paper with Solutions

For full marks, cover: what the statement means: "employee" is the wider class (anyone employed for wages), "workman" a narrower class defined by the kind of work and by exclusions; "workman" in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947: the kinds of work, "for hire or reward", and the four exclusions (armed forces, police and prison staff, managerial or administrative staff, supervisors above the wage limit or with managerial functions); "employee" under the welfare and social security laws (ESI Act section 2(9); EPF Act section 2(f)), which cover contract and other staff; the decided cases on the line: work must fall within the listed kinds (H.R. Adyanthaya; S.K. Verma overtaken; Chauharya Tripathi), the dominant duties test for supervisors and managers, and a non-workman's dismissal is not an industrial dispute (Dimakuchi Tea Estate); the wide reach of "employee" (Royal Talkies); why the difference matters; a table; the Industrial Relations Code 2020 ("employee" and "worker", sections 2(l) and 2(zr)); a conclusion.

Four exclusions. The definition does not include a person:

1. subject to the Air Force, Army or Navy Acts;
2. employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison;
3. employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
4. employed in a supervisory capacity who draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees a month, or exercises mainly managerial functions.

"Employee" in the welfare and social security laws

Other labour laws define "employee" much more widely, because their aim is coverage, not dispute settlement.

1. ESI Act, section 2(9). An employee is "any person employed for wages in or in connection with the work of a factory or establishment". This includes persons employed directly or through an immediate employer such as a contractor, and persons lent or hired out.
2. EPF Act, section 2(f). An employee is "any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise", in or in connection with an establishment, including persons employed through a contractor.

2. Managers and supervisors: the dominant duties test. The exclusions use the word "mainly": employed "mainly" in a managerial or administrative capacity, or exercising "mainly" managerial functions. So the question turns on a person's principal duties, not on his designation. A clerk called a "manager" would still be a workman if his real work is clerical. A supervisor earning above the limit is excluded whatever his duties.

3. A dispute about a non-workman is not an industrial dispute.

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353. An Assistant Medical Officer of a tea estate was dismissed, and the workmen took up his cause. The Supreme Court held that he was not a workman. The workmen had no direct or substantial interest in his employment, so their dispute was not an industrial dispute. He was an employee of the estate, but outside the Act's protection.

2. The factory's personnel manager. He is employed for wages, so he is an employee under the welfare laws, subject to their wage ceilings. But he is employed mainly in a managerial capacity, so he is not a workman. If dismissed, he cannot raise an industrial dispute, and must sue on his contract of employment instead.
3. A contractor's canteen worker at the factory. He is a workman of the contractor. Under section 2(9) of the ESI Act he is also an employee of the factory owner as principal employer, who must pay his contributions.

Why the difference matters

1. Remedies. Only a workman can use conciliation, adjudication, section 2A and section 11A relief. An employee who is not a workman must sue under his contract or service rules, usually without reinstatement.
2. Protections. Lay-off and retrenchment compensation, and protection during proceedings (section 33), belong to workmen.
3. Benefits. Provident fund, insurance and similar benefits reach the wider class of employees.

At a glance

Conclusion. "Employee" is the wider class: anyone employed for wages, including managers and contract staff, as the welfare laws and Royal Talkies show. "Workman" is the narrower class defined by section 2(s): those employed to do the listed kinds of work for hire or reward. The armed forces, police and prison staff, managers and senior supervisors are excluded. Medical representatives and Development Officers were employees but not workmen, as Adyanthaya and Chauharya Tripathi hold. A non-workman's dismissal is no industrial dispute, as Dimakuchi shows. So all workmen are employees, but not all employees are workmen.