Holding

The 1984 amendment to the definition of "workman" is prospective, and the appellant's duties were managerial, so he was not a "workman" at the time of his dismissal.

Summary

C. Gupta was appointed as an Industrial Relations Executive (management staff) of Glaxo‑SmithKline Pharmaceuticals and was terminated on 15 September 1982 under a clause allowing dismissal with three months' notice or salary in lieu. He claimed to be a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and sought reinstatement and back wages, alleging non‑compliance with Section 25N. The Labour Court reinstated him, but the Bombay High Court quashed the award, holding he was not a workman. The Supreme Court examined whether the 1984 amendment to the definition of "workman" was prospective or retrospective and whether Gupta's duties were managerial rather than technical. It held that the amendment was prospective, so it could not apply to a dismissal that occurred in 1982, and that Gupta's functions were managerial, placing him outside the definition of "workman". Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The amendment to the definition of "workman" in the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1984 – whether it is prospective or retrospective and whether it applies to a dismissal that occurred before its commencement.
Whether the appellant's duties as Industrial Relations Executive qualify him as a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the termination clause in the appointment letter is void under Articles 14, 20(1) and 21 of the Constitution or Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
Whether the employer is liable under Section 25N/25Q of the Industrial Disputes Act for terminating the appellant without notice or retrenchment compensation.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 20(1), s. Article 21
Indian Contract Act, 1872s. 23
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 25N, s. 25Q, s. 2(s)

Subjects

workman definitionIndustrial Disputes Actprospective amendmentmanagerial stafftermination clauseSection 25NSection 25Qconstitutional challengeemployment law

Judgment

A MR.C.GUPTA
v. _....
GLAXQSMITHKLIN PHARMACEUTICAL LIMITED

MAY25, 2007

B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 2(s):
)
Industrial Relations Executive-Performing functions of advising
c management preparing draft enquiry report, conducting domestic enquiries,
tendering of, legal advise; holding conferences with employer's advocates
and having conditions of service different than those provided for workers
of employer-Held: He was not a workman as duties undertaken by him were
not technical in nature but overwhelmingly fell in managerial cadre.
......
D (Amendment) AC!, 1984 introducing 'operational' work and making
'skilled' and 'unskilled' independent categories, unlinked to 'manual'-
Effect of-'-Held, it did not have retrospective effect as (i) there was neither y
express provision regarding that nor any necessary implication or intendment
thereto either in amending Act or in amendment itself (ii) it did not pertain
E to procedure but substantially changed scope of definition of "workman"
whic}i could not be said to be merely declaratory or clarificatory (iii) though
(Amendment) Act was enacted on 31.8.1982, but notification bringing it into
effect was issued only subsequently on 21.8.1984 (iv) if employee dismissed
before amendment came into effect later comes within ambit of amended
definition of ··workman' and if amendment is given retrospective effect,
F employer becomes punishable/or offence under Section 25 N and Q of 1947
Act, amounting to his being punishable for an offence which he could not 1"-
have envisaged on date of dismissal; this would be violative of Article 20(1)
of Constitution of India, 1950.

Interpretation of statutes-Amendment-Effect of-Held-It would be
G
prospective if it is deemed to have come with effect from a particular day or
provides for it becoming operative in future.

Respondent advertised for recruitment to the post of "Industrial
Relations Executive". The advertisement indicated duties required to be (
H 800
C. GUPTA'" GLAXOSMITHKLIN PHARMACEUTICAL LTD. 801
J performed by the selected candidates. Appellant was appointed to the said 1A
post. The letter offering the appointment mentioned that the appellant would
be a member of the Management Staff in Grade 11-A. Clause17 of the said
letter provided for termination of the appointment by respondent at any time
and without assigning any reason upon giving not less than three months
notice in writing or salary in lieu thereof. In accordance with this clause, the
services of the appellant came to be terminated on 15.9.1982 on the ground B
that they were no longer required.
(
Being aggrieved by termination of his services, the appellant attempted
to get redressal though Conciliation. On failure therein, the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) referred the matter for adjudication.
Consequently, in 1985, the appellant filed his statement of claim in the Labour
c
Court claiming that he was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He claimed that termination of his services
was illegal, invalid and void on account of non-compliance of the provisions of
Section 25N of the Act in as much as no notice or retrenchment compensation
had been paid to him. He sought the prayer of reinstatement in service with D
.... full back wages with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

The respondent contested claims of appellant. The Labour Court allowed
the claim of the appellant and he was directed to be reinstated in service with
continuity in service. It was, however, held that the appellant would be entitled
neither for any back wages nor future reinstatement from the date of the E
award, though he would be entitled for compensation in lieu thereof. This was
primarily on the ground that the appellant had given false information at the
time of appointment. The appellant as well as the respondent filed writ petitions
before the High Court against the aforesaid award of Labour Court. Both were
disposed of quashing the award. Hence the present appeal.
F
"" Appellant contended that (i) the amendment of the expression 'workman'
under Section 2(5) by amendment thereto dated 21.8.1984 brought him within
the ambit of the said expression; (ii) in the alternative also he was still within
that ambit as nature of his work was not manual but technical.
G
Respondent contended that (i) the amendment is clearly prospective; (ii)
· if appellants' claim is accepted, the penal consequences flowing from Section
25N & Q of the Act will be applicable; (iii) it has been found factually that

' there was no technical work done; (iv) the salary received by the appellant
was much higher than received by a workman (v) the advertisement spelt out
the requirements and responsibilities. H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A Dismissing the appeals, the Court
J...
HELD 1.1. The nomenclature is really not of any consequence. Whether
a particular employee comes within the definition of workman has to be decided
factually. In fact, It has been found as a matter with reference to various factual
aspects that the duties undertaken by the appellant overwhelmingly fall in
B the managerial cadre. IPara 2011809-C; DI

1.2. The High Court has referred to the evidence of the appellant. He
had admitted in his evidence that apart from the advice to the management
)
from time to time, he had other independent functions such as preparation of
draft enquiry report and conducting domestic enquiries. In his cross-
c examination he had further admitted that he had tendered legal advise in all
the four branches and factory of the company at Worli. He also admitted that
on many occasions he had drafted management enquiry and it was his duty to
hold conferences with the advocates in relation to the company's acts. He also
admitted that as an employee in the category of management staff, his
conditions of service were different than those provided for the workers of
D the Company. He also admitted that leave given to him were not applicable
under the settlement. He also admitted that he was covered under the Pension
>:
Scheme which did not apply under the settlement with employees.
fPara 2711813-F, G, H; 814-AI

1.3. In view of the afore ..aid factual position, the impugned judgment
E does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. !Para 281 (814-BI
Hussain Mithu Mhasvadkar v. Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board and
Anr., 1200117SCC394, relied on.

Ruston & Hornsby (I) Ltd v. T. B. Kadam, 11976)3 SCC 71; Muir Mills
F Unit ofNTC (U.P.) Ltd v. Swayam Prakash Srivastava and Anr., 1200711 SCC
491 and Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd v. 'f''
The Burma Shell Management Staff Association and Ors., 119701 3 SCC,
referred to.

2.1. For determining the nature of amendment, the question is whether
G it affects the legal rights of individual workers in the context that if they fall
within the definition then they would be entitled to claim several benefits
conferred by the Act. The amendment should be also one which would touch
upon their substantive rights. Unless there is a clear provision to the effect .
'
that it is retrospective or such retrospectivity can be implied by necessary .f

implication or intendment; it must be held to be prospective.
H IPara 2311810-H; 811-AI
C. GUPTA 11, GLAXOSMITHKLIN PHARMACEUTICAL LTD. 803

.l 2.2. There is no such clear provision or anything to suggest by A
necessary implication or intendment either in the amending Act or in the
amendment itself. The amendment cannot be said to be one which affects
procedure. In so far as the amendment substantially changes the scope of the
definition of the term "workman" it cannot be said to be merely declaratory
or clarificatory. Entirely new category of persons who are doing "operational"
work was introduced first time in the definition and the words "skilled" and
B
"unskilled" were made independent categories unlinked to the word
"manual". !Para 2311811-A, B; Cl

2.3. The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1984 was enacted by
Parliament on 31.8.1982. However, the amendment itself was not brought into c
force immediately and in sub-section (I) of Section I of the Amending Act, it
was provided that it would come into force on such day as the Central
Government may be Notification in the official Gazette, appoint. Ultimately,
by a Notification the said amendment w:is brought into force on 21.8.1984.
!Para 2311811-C; DI
D
., 2.4. Although the amendment would be prospective if it is deemed to
have come into effect on a particular day, a provision in the amendment Act to
the effect that amendment would become operative in the future, would have
similar effect. !Para 2311811-DI
E
2.5. By the application of the tests mentioned above, it is clear that the
definition of workman as amended must, therefore, presumed to be prospective.
!Para 2411811-EI

State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Rameshwar Rahod, AIR (1990)
SC 1849, referred to. F
"r 3. There is a further reason as to why the definition of workman as
prevailing on the date of dismissal should be taken into account. When the
workman is dismissed, it is usually contended (as has been done in the present
case) that the relevant conditions precedent for retrenchment under Section
25-N having not been followed and that, therefore, the termination is illegal G
Section 25-Q of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 lays down the contravention

,
.
of the provision of Section 25-N shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to Rs•
1000/- or with both. It is, therefore, clear that on the date of dismissal, the
employer must act according to the then prevailing provision of law. It is only H

11
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A in respect of a workman who is then within the definition of Section 2(s) of
the Act that the employer is required to follow the condition mentioned in
Section 25-N, failing which, he will commit an offence. If the employee so
dismissed, later becomes a person who is a workman within an expanded ~.

definition brought about by a subsequent amendment held to be of retrospective
nature, the employer will be rendered punishable for an offence under Section
B 2S N and Q as this would amount to the employer being punishable for an
offence, which he could not have envisaged on the date of dismissal This would
)
be violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
(Para 2511811-G; F; H; 812-A-BI

c · CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6543-6544 of
2004.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 17. I 0.2003 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal Nos. 1379 of 1999 and 170 of2000. .....
D Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv., Gaurav Jain, Abha Jain and Sneha Kalita for
the Appellant. )-

P.K. Rele, Sr. Adv., S.V. Oeshpande and Pramit Saxena for the Respondent

E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. I. Appellant calls in question legality of the
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing
the writ appeals filed by the appellant. Both the appeals were filed to set
aside the common judgment and order passed in Writ Petition nos.462/95 and
F 695196 by a learned Single Judge on 13.4.1999.
-r-
2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows: J

3: On 4.8.1976 Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as
G the "said Company") which has now been taken over by the present
respondent no. I (Glaxo-SmithKline Pharma<:euticals Ltd.) indicated their
intention to advertise the post of "Industrial Relations Executive". Since
membef'S of the staff who fell in the category of "Management Staff Grade- J~

Ill" were also entitled to apply for the vacant post which fell in "Managemen~ · (
Staff Grade-II", an advance staff notice was also taken out by the Company.
H The same incorporated the text of the advertisement which was to follow. The
C. GUPTA v. GLAXOSMITHKUN PHARMACEUTICAL LTD. [PASA YAT.J.] 805
re1evant part from the advertisement which pertains to the duties required to A
be performed by the selected candidates was as follows:-

"The selected candidate will advise the Corporate personal Department
and through it various establishments of the Company on all matters
relating to Labour Laws; operate various applications and claims and
appear selectively before Labour authorities such as Conciliation B
Officer~, Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals.

An important aspect of the job wiil be to assist the I.It Manager in
developing the framework for settlements and in dealing with Unions.

This is a challenging job with a span of advice extending to three C
factories, four branches and fifteen u-country depots. The prospects
for a results-oriented man are excellent.
\.
Qualifications and Experience:

At least a First Class Law Degree, preferably a Master's Degree. D
Detailed knowledge of case laws and proceedings pertaining to labour
laws.

Three to five years experience of litigation before Labour Courts,
Industrial Tribunals and other authorities.
E
Ability to get on with people.

Age: Around 30 years".

4. On 17.3.1977 the Company issued a letter offering an appointment to
the appellant as "Industrial Relations Executive". This letter mentioned that F
the appellant would be a member of the Management Staff in Grade 11-A and
that the appointment would take effect from the date of the appellant joining
the company, which was required to be earlier than 18.6.1977. Though the
terms and conditions of appointment were contained in this appointment
letter, the exact nature of duties and functions to be performed were not laid G
down therein.

5. Clause 17 of the appointment letter provided for termination of the
appointment and was in the following terms:-

"The Company may, at any time and without assigning any reason,
terminate this appointment upon giving not less than three months H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A notice in writing or salary in lieu thereof."

6. In pursuance of the appointment Jetter, the appellant joined services
of the Company on 13.7.1977. On J5.9.1982, vide a termination Jetter dated
15.9.1982, the services of the appellant came to be terminated from the close
of business on that day. The said termination was made in pursuance of
B clause 17 of the letter of appointment dated 17.8.1977 on the ground that the
services of the petitioner were no longer required.

7. Being aggrieved by such termination, the appellant attempted to get J
his grievance redressed through the Deputy Commissioner of Labour
(Conciliation) but the Conciliation failed and ultimately the Deputy
C Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) by his order of Reference No. CL/IDE/
AJD/2A/G-772(84) referred the matter for adjudication.

8. Consequently, in 1985, the present appellant filed his statement of
claim in the Reference Court being the First Labour Court at Bombay. In his
D statement of claim for the reasons mentioned therein, the appellant claimed
to be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, I 947 (in short the 'Act') as his work was of"skilled, technical and clerical )
nature, apart from it being operational". He claimed that termination of his
services were illegal, invalid and void on account of non-compliance of the
provisions of Section 25N of the Act in as much as no notice or retrenchment
E compensation had been paid to him. He also contended that clausel 7 of the
letter of appointment dated 17.3. J977 was illegal in as much as it was against
the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution oflndia, 1950 (in short
the 'Constitution') and was void as ultra vires Section 23 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 (in short the 'Contract Act'). He sought the prayer of
F reinstatement in service with full back wages with continuity of service and
all other attendant benefits. Reference was made under Section I 0( 1) of the
Act.

9. In the reference, the respondent-Company filed its written statement
on 8.8.1985. In the written statement the Company disputed the stand that the
G appellant was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. It
was denied that the termination of his services was illegal for alleged non-
compliance of provisions of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
or that it violated any provisions of Constitution or of Section 23 of the
Contract Act. r
H 10. Both parties led evidence in the reference before the Labour Court.
C. GUPTA v. GLAXOSMITHKLIN PHARMACEUTICAL LTD. [PASAYAT. J.] 807

The appellant led his own evidence and on behalf of the respondent-company .A.
the evidence of one R.P. Bharucha who was then the Director of the Family
Products Division of the Company, who had been the Central Personal Manager
of the Company at the time when the appellant had been appointed and had
been the Chief Personnel Manager of the Company on the date of the
Appellant's termination was led. Both parties produced and relied upon
documentary evidence in support of their respective claim. B
11. Ultimately, by an award passed by the Presiding Officer, First Labour
Court, Bombay on 31.10.1994, the claim of the appellant was allowed and he
was directed to be reinstated in service with continuity in service w.e.f.
11.12.1982 to 30.11.1989 with all consequential benefits including pay revision C
if any. It was, however, held that the appellant would not be entitled for any
back wages from 30.11.1989 till the date of the award and wouid not be
entitled for any relief of future reinstatement from the date of the award
though he would be entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu thereof.
This was primarily on the ground that appellant had given false information
at the time of appointment. D
12. Both the appellant as well as the Company filed writ petitions before
the Bombay High Court against the aforesaid award dated 31. l 0.1994 passed
by the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Bombay. The Company filed Writ
Petition No.462 of 1995 and the appellant filed Writ Petition No.695 of 1996.
Since both the writ petitions impugned the same award, they were heard and I;,
disposed of by a common judgment and order delivered by the learned Single
Judge of the High Court on 13.4.1999. By this judgment and order the learned
Single Judge held that the appellant could not be said to be a workman within
the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. Notwithstanding his conclusion that
the appellant was not a workman, and that the Industrial Court would not F
have any jurisdiction to decide the dispute, the learned Single J~dge further
dealt with the merits of the matter and arrived at the conclusion that the
Company had ample reason to resort clause-17 of the appointment letter and
terminate the appellant. Ultimately the learned Single Judge made rule absolute
in Writ Petition No.462 of 1995 filed by the Company and dismissed Writ
Petition No.695 of 1996 filed by the present appellant, thus quashing the G·
award of the Labour Court dated 31.10.1994.

13. It is against this judgment and order passed by the learned Single
Judge, the Civil Appeal No.1879 of 1999 came to be filed by the appellant. The
appe\\ant subsequently filed Civil Appeal No.170 of 2000 which also impugned fl
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A the same judgment and. order passed by the learned Single Judge.
14. Th~ appellant's main contention before the High Court was· that he
was a qualified legal person and the nature of his duties, work and functions
were to advise the m!ln~gement of the company which required knowledge of
law and
. .
the. . matters arising out . of the .aftairs
: .
of the company. It was submitted
B that the petitioner, qiust be sai~ to be employed to do technical work within
the meaning of Part I of Section 2(s) of the Act. It was further the stand that
.the Act.was amended in 1984 de-linking the words "skilled" and "unskilled"·
from the word. "manual" and by adding the word "operational": It was,
1 ·
. therefore, pleaded that.the finding that the appellant was doing managerial or
•·C · administrative work is not correct: Learned Single Judge 'did 'not accept. the
contention and the Division Bench also did not accept the contentfon.

15. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant subm!tted
as follows:

16. The amendment of the expression .'workman' under Section 2(s)
D clearly brought the appellant within the ambit of the said expression. The
amendment was made on 21.8.1984 and reference on 29.9.1995. According to
him, the date of reference is material, even if it is conceded for the sake of ·
argument but not accepted that the un-amended provisions apply, yet
considering the nature of the work which is technical in nature the appellant
E was a workman. Further, it was not manual as has been held by the High
Court. Finally, it was submitted that while exercising jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constitution, the forum is really of' no consequence, if the termination
is held to be bad~ The relief could be moulded under Article. 142 of the
Constitution.

F 17. Strong reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Ruston ~·. ·
Hornsby (I) Ltd. V. T.B. Kadam, [1976] 3 sec 71 to contend thatthe.amended
definition applies. It was further submitted that the High Court \YaS not.
justified in placing reliance on the last line of paragraph 15 of Burmah Shell
Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd. v. The Burma Shell
G Management Staff Association and Ors., [1970] 3 SCC 378 at p389 ..·
18. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted
that the amendment is clearly prospective. The question of creation of new
rights is really not relevant. The question is one ofstatus: Only a new forum
is created. If appellants' claim is accepted, the penal consequences flowing
H from Section 25N & Q of the Act will be applicable. It has been found
•. C.GUPTAv.GLAXOSMITHKLINPHARMACEUTICALLTD.[PASAYAT,J.] 809

factually that there was no technical work done. The salary received by the A
appellant was much higher than received by a workman. The advertisement
spelt out the requirements and responsibilities. The Labour Court had relied
on a decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court which was set aside by this
Court in Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd v. Ajit Singh, [2005] 3 SCC
232 in which it was held that Legal Assistant is not workman.
B
19. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the said decision
is not applicable because in that case th,e Legal Assistant had a license to
practice.

20. It is not in dispute that the nomenclature is really not of any
consequence. Whether a particular employee comes within the definition of
workman has to be decided factually. In fact, it has been found as a matter
with reference to various factual aspects that the duties undertaken by the
appellant overwhelmingly fall in the managerial cadre. So far as the nature of
work is concerned, the Division Bench of the High Court took note of several
aspects as reflected in para 29 of the judgment The same reads as follows: D

"In the evidence adduced on behalf of the Company, its Director
Shri Rustam Padam Bharucha deposed that the duties of the appellant
were to· represent the Company in Conciliation proceedings, before
Government authorities under the Factories Act. E.S.I. Act, P.F. Act,
Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, to represent the E
management as an Enquiry officer or as the management's
Representative in domestic enquiries, to guide and advise the
management's representative in domestic enquiries, to advise him
about the line of cross-examination in such enquiries, advise about
the auantum of punishment to be inflicted in disciplinary proceedings. F
To give advise on queries raised by the management pertaining to the
interpretation of statutes or settlement with the Unions or regarding
enquiries raised by Government authorities to brief witnesses,· to
prepare drafts for the perusal of Counsel to brief Counsel on facts as
well as la_w to be present in Court when the arguments were taking
place in judicial matters related to the Company, to keep in touch with G
the latest case laws and amendments to the labour· legislations, to
ensure that the management fulfilled its obligations under the Labour
legislations and to advise the management on provisions of settlement."

21. It has been pleaded that the amendment to the definition of workman
brings the appellant within the. amended definition. H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A 22. In State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Rameshwar Rahod. AIR J<
(1990) SC 1849 it. has been held as follows:

"It was next contended by the respondent before the High Court that
the Criminal Court was empowered under Section 7 of the Act to
confiscate the vehicle after due and proper inquiry and therefore the
B proceedings by the District Collector under Section 6A and Section
68 of the Act should be quashed. Reliance was placed on several
decisions and authorities. Our attention was drawn to the decision
1
of the Mysore High Court in the case of The State v. Abdul Rasheed,
AIR (1967) Mysore 231, Sri Bharat Maheyv. State of UP., (1975) Crl.
LJ 890 (All) as well as the decision of the learned single Judge in State
c of MP. v. Basant Kumar, (1972) Jab LJ Short Note No.99. On a
consideration of the relevant autt 0rities, the High Court came to the
conclusion that the criminal Court had jurisdiction to deal with the
matter. Mr. Deshpande sought to argue that in view of the enactment
of the provisions of Section 6A as well as Sectio!l 7 of the Act, it
D cannot be held that the criminal Court continued to retain jurisdiction.
He submitted that in view of the enactment of these provisions, it )
would be usel<!ss to hold that the criminal Court continued to retain
jurisdiction, otherwise the very purpose of enacting Section 6A read
with Section 7 would be defeated. We are, however, unable to accept
this contention because normally under the Criminal Procedure Code,
E the Criminal Courts of the country have the jurisdiction and the ouster
of the ordinary criminal Court in respect of a crime can only be
inferred if that is the irresistible conclusion flowing from necessary
implication of the new Act. In view of the language used and in the
context in which this language has been used, we are of the opinion
F that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the
Criminal Court retained jurisdiction and was not completely ousted of
the jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, the High C0urt was
therefore right in passing the order under consiqifration and in the
facts and circumstances of the case to return :'th.e v:ehicle to the
respondent on furnishing the security. In the prefriise the appeal must
G fail and is dismissed. There will, however, be,-ilo order as to costs."

23. In the present case, we find that for de.termining the nature of
amendment, the question is whether it affects the ·legal rights of individual f
workers in the context that if they fall within the definition then they would
H be entitled to claim seh:ral benefits conferred by the Act. The amendment
C. GUPTA v. GLAXOSMITHKLIN PHARMACElJfICAL LTD. (PASAYAT, J.] 811

should be also one which would touch upon their substantjve rights. Unless A
there is a clear provision to the effect that it is retrospective or such
retrospectivity can be implied by necessary implication or intendment, it must
be held to be prospective. We find no such clear provision or anything to
suggest by necessary implication or intendment either in the amending Act
or in the amendmen~ itself. The amendment cannot be said to be one which B
affects procedure. In so far as the amendment substantfally changes the
scope of the definition of the tenn "workman" it cannot be· said to be merely
declaratory or clarificatory. In this regard we find that entirely new category
of persons who are doing "operational" work was introduced first time in the
definition and the words "skilled" and "unskilled" were made independent
categories unlinked to the word "manual". It can be seen that the Industrial C
Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1984 was enacted by Parliament on 3 l.8.1982.
However, the amendment itself was not brought into force immediately and
in sub-section ( 1) of Section 1 of the Amending Act, it was pr,· ·:ded that it
would come into force on such day as the Central Government may be
Notification in the official Gazette, appoint. Ultimately, by a Notification the
said amendment was brought into force on 21.8.1984. Although this Court D
has held that the amendment would be prospective if it is deemed to have
come with effect on a particular day, a provision in the amendment Act to the
effect that amendment would become operative in the future, would have
similar effect.

24. Therefore, by the application of the tests mentioned above, it is clear
E
that the definition of workman as amended must, therefore, presumed to be
prospective.

25. In this regard we would like to give one further reason as to why
the definition of workman as prevailing on the date of dismissal should be F
taken into account. When the workman is dismissed, it is usually contended
(as has been done in the present case) that the relevant conditions precedent
for retrenchment under Section 25-N having not been followed and that,
therefore, the termination is illegal. Section 25-Q of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 lays down that contravention of the provision of Section 25-N shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a tenn which may extend to one month G
or with fine which may extend to Rs. I 000/- or with both. It is, therefore, clear
that on the date of dismissal, the employer must act according to the then
prevailing provision of law. It is only in respect of a workman who is then
within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act that the employer is required
to follow the condition mentioned in Section 25-N, failing which, he will H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.

A commit an offence. If the employee so dismissed, later becomes a persolll who ·
is a workman within an expanded definition brought about by a subsequent
amendment held to be of retrospective nature, the employe_r will be rendered
punishable for an offence under Section 25 N and Q as this would amount
to the employer being punishable for an offence, ~hich he could not have
envisaged on the date of dismissal. This would be violative of Article 20( I)
B of the Constitution.

26. I.n Burmah Shell's case (supra) it was held as follows:

In this connection, we may take notice of the argument advanced
by Mr. Chari on behalf of the Association that, whenever a tecfonical
c man is e~ployed in ,an industry, it mu.,;t be held that he is.emplloyed
to do technical work irrespective of the manner in which and. the
occasions on which the technical knowledge of that person is actually
brought into use. The general proposition put forward by him was
that, if a technical employee even gives advice or guides other workmen,
D 'it must be held that he is doing technical work and not supervisory
work; He elaborated this submission by urging ~hat, if we hold the
supervisory work done by a technician as not amounting to his being
employed to do technical work, the result would· be that only 1those
persons would be held to be employed on technical work who actually
do manual work themselves. According to him this would result in
E making the word "technical" redundans in the definition of'work:man'
even though it was later introduced to amplify the scope 01f the
definition. We are unable to accept these submissions. The argument
that, if we hold that supervisory work done by a technical man is not
employment to do technical work, it would result in only manual work
being held to be technical work, is not at all conect. There is a clear
F
distinction between technical work and manual work. Similarly 1there
is a distinction between employments which 'are substantially for
manual duties, and employments where the principal. duties: are
supervisory or other type, though incidentally involving some manual
work. Even though the law in India is different from that in England,
G the views expressed by Branson, J;, in Appeal of Gardner : ;:n re
Maschek: In re Tyrrell [1938] I All E.R. 20 are helpful, because, !there
also, the nature of the work had to be examined to see whether it was.
manual work. As examples of duties different from manual labour,
though incidentally involving manual work, he mentioned cases where (
a worker (a) is mainly occupied in clerical or accounting work, o,r (b)
H
C.GUPTAv.GLAXOSMITHKLINPHARMACElJflCALLTD.[PASAYAT;J.] 813

is mainly occupied in supervising the work of others, or (c) is mainly A
:·.
occupied in managing a business or a department, or (d) is mainly
engaged in salesmanship, or (e) if the successful execution of his
work depends mainly upon the display of taste or imagination or the
exercise of some special mental or artistic faculty or the application of
scientific knowledge as distinguished from manual dexterity. Another B
helpful illustration given by him of the contrast between the two
types of cases was in the following words :-

"If one finds a man employed because he has the artistic
faculties which will enable him to produce something wanted in
the shape ofa creation of his own, then obviously, although it
involves a good deal of manual labour, he is employed in order C
that the employer may get the benefit of his creative faculty."

The example (e), given above, very appropriately applies to the
case of a person employed to do technical work. His work depends
upon special mental training or scientific or technical knowledge. If
the man is employed because he possesses such faculties and they D
enable him to produce something as a creation of his own, he will
have to be held to be employed on technical work, even though, in
carrying out that work, he may have to go through a lot of manual
labour. If, on the other hand, he is merely employed in supervising the
work of others, the fact that, for the purpose of proper supervision, E
he is required to have technical knowledge will not convert his
supervisory work into technical work. The work of giving advice and
guidance cannot be held to be an employment to do technical work."

27. In Hussain Mithu Mhasvadkar v. Bombay Iron & Steel Labour
Board and Ar.r., {200 I] 7 sec 394 it was held that while deciding the status F
of the person, nature of work is really relevant. The High Court has referred
to the evidence of the appellant. He had admitted in his evidence that apart
from the advice to the management from time to time, he had other independent
functions such as preparation of draft enquiry report and conducting domestic
enquiries. In his cross-examination he had further admitted that he had tendered G
legal advise in all the four branches :ind factory of the company at Worli. He
also -admitted that on many occasions he had drafted management enquiry
and it was his duty to hold conferences with the advocates in relation to the
company's acts~ He also admitted that as an employee in th_e category of
management staff, his conditions of service were different than those provided
H'
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C. R.

A for the workers of the Company. He also admitted that leave given to him
were not applicable under the settlement. He also admittei:i that he was
covered under the Pension Scheme which did not apply under the settlemi~nt
with employees.

28. In view of the aforesaid factual position, the order of the learned
B Single Judge and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench do not suffer
from any infirmity to warrant interference. Learned counsel for the appellant
tried to distinguish the judgment in the Ruston & Hornsby (/) LtrJ. c.ase
(supra) on the ground that there legal assistant had licence to practice. As J
rightly submitted by learned counsel for the respondent no distinction was
C made by this Court on the only ground that licence and in paragraph 16 the
distinction was made on the basis of duties. In a recent case in Muir Mills
Unit ofNTC (U.P.) Ltd v. Swayam Prakash Srivastava and Anr. [2007] 1 SCC
491 question of legal assistant was also considered. In that case the definition
between occupation and profession was highlighted.

D 29. The appeals are sans merit, deserve dismissal which we direct

VS Appeals dismissed.

( '