Holding

A person drawing a salary above the statutory limit and performing supervisory duties does not fall within the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore the termination was not illegal under the Act.

Summary

The employee, Lenin Kumar Ray, was appointed as Junior Engineer and later promoted to Assistant Engineer in a newspaper publishing company, drawing a salary well above the pre‑amendment threshold of Rs.1,600 per month. He was relieved on 8 October 2003 with payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice, which he accepted and encashed. The employee claimed he was a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that his termination was illegal, seeking reinstatement and back wages. The Supreme Court examined the definition of "workman", emphasizing that the nature of duties, not the designation, determines status, and noted that the employee performed supervisory functions and earned a salary exceeding the statutory limit, thus excluding him from the Act’s ambit. Consequently, the Court held that the employee was not a "workman", there was no procedural violation in his termination, and affirmed the High Court’s order setting aside the Labour Court’s award of reinstatement and compensation. The appeal filed by the employee was dismissed, while the appeal filed by the management was allowed.

Issues considered

The employee's status as a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Whether the termination of the employee's service complied with the procedural requirements of the Act
Whether the Labour Court's award of reinstatement and back‑wage compensation should be upheld

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 25F, s. 25G, s. 25H, s. 2(s)
Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 2010

Headnote

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 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:

Subjects

Section 2(s)Section 25FSection 25GSection 25HWorkmanNature of duties dischargedSupervisory roleTerms of employmentAppointment order

Judgment

[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.)