Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
S. 2(s)
A workman employed on a part time basis but under the control and
supervision of an employer is a workman in term of Section 2(s) of
the Act, and is entitled to claim the protection of Section 25F.
Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. A.
Sankaralingam, AIR 2009 SC 309: (2008) 10 SCC 698
An employee appointed as Industrial Relations Executive has to draft
management enquiry and to hold conferences with the advocates in
relation to the company's acts. Being in the category of management
staff Gr. II, his conditions of service were different than those
provided for the workers of the Company. Leave given to him were
not applicable under the settlement. He was covered under the
Pension Scheme which did not apply under the settlement with
employees. It was held therefore that he was not a workman. C.
Gupta v. Galaxosmithklin Pharmaceutical Ltd., AIR 2007 SC (Supp)
1244
Duty of a Legal Assistant is to supervise Court cases and whenever
necessary to prepare draft reply of matters pending in Court. Such
employees are professionals and cannot be termed as workman
under any law. Muir Mills Unit of N. T. C. (U. P.) Ltd. v. Swayam
Prakash Srivastava, AIR 2007 SC 519 : (2007) 1 SCC 491
Professional job involves creativity and is not stereotype.
Professionals cannot be workmen. Management of M/s. Sonepat
Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ajit Singh, AIR 2005 SC 1050 : (2005) 3
SCC 232
Mere breach of a Standing Order could not render the strike illegal
under Sections 23 and 24. Ballarpur Collieries Co. v. Presiding Officer,
C. G. I. T. Dhanbad, AIR 1972 SC 1216
Strike called by the union ignoring conciliation proceedings,
managements offer and request for deferring the strike for even one
day was held illegal. Management of the Fertilizer Corporation of India
Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR 1970 SC 867
S. 25-B Continuous service
Service rendered under two different establishments, although under
one central management, cannot be clubbed to reckon continues
service of 240 days in a calendar year. Haryana State Co-operative
Supply Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Sanjay, AIR 2009 SC 3155
Completion of 240 days' work does not confer right of regularisation.
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh, AIR 2007 SC 2733
The expression "actually worked under the employer" cannot mean
those days only when the workman worked with hammer, sickle or pen,
but must necessarily comprehend all those days during which he was in
the employment of the employer and for which he had been paid
wages. Thus Sundays and other paid holidays should be taken into
account for the purpose of reckoning the total number of days on which
the workman could be said to have actually worked. Workmen of A. E. I.
B. Corpn. v. Management A. E. I. B. Corpn., AIR 1986 SC 458 However
period of illegal strike has to be excluded. Management of Standard
Motor Products of India Limited v. A. Parthasarathy, AIR 1986 SC 462
Again, termination of services on account of closure of one unit of appellantSociety would not amount to retrenchment merely because other units of
appellant were functioning and not closed down. Not being retrenchment,
such termination would not be illegal for non-compliance of provisions of S.
25F. Employee entitled to compensation only in accordance with S.
25FFF.District Red Cross Society v. Babita Arora, AIR 2007 SC 2879
When the company on closure offered compensation which was not
accepted by the workmen, the company cannot held at fault. Govt. of India
v. Workmen of State Trading Corporation, AIR 1999 SC 1532
Under the Industrial Disputes Act if an industry is closed the employees
thereof are entitled to compensation as provided under Section 25-FFF of
the Industrial Disputes Act. When on completion of project the employees
were terminated but were continued to be paid their wages during pendency
of appeal before Supreme Court, it was held that on dismissal of the appeal,
the employees would be only entitled to compensation u/s 25FFF and not
regularisation or reinstatement. Management of Dandakaranya Project,
Koreput v. Workmen, AIR 1997 SC 852 : (1997) 2 SCC 296
Construction company was undertaking construction works wherever
awarded and appointing numbers of local persons. On completion of work of
any place the Companys establishment was wound up. It was held that
mere unity of ownership and management and reservation of right to
transfer employees do not indicate that units at different places constitute
single establishment. Workers cannot demand absorption in other units.
Hindustan Steel Works Constriction Ltd. v. H.S.W.C. Employees Union,
Hyderabad, AIR 1995 SC 1163
Badli workers have no right to employment and hence no protection under
the Act.