My duties are to assist the chief engineer in carrying out his responsibilities. I am tasked with overseeing the maintenance of sugar plant machinery. I do not have the authority to approve leave requests or to write performance evaluation reports for the engineering department employees. I am required to follow instructions from the chief engineer and deputy chief engineer. Our organization is a cooperative sugar factory with elected directors who appoint a managing director. I support the managing director and heads of departments such as the chief engineer.
There is a relevant apex court judgment where engineers and assistant engineers are classified as workers.
From India, Kolhapur
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
There is a relevant apex court judgment where engineers and assistant engineers are classified as workers.
From India, Kolhapur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Suhaspatil,
Concepts change from time to time. Very long back, management was synonymous with ownership. With the emergence of Joint-stock Companies, ownership was separated from management. The powers of the single manager got diluted after the emergence of specialization or professionalization of the different aspects of management. Despite such changes, what remains intact are the aspects of control and supervision in any activity of human endeavor which requires the involvement of more than a single person in its accomplishment. Therefore, the absence of certain managerial powers cannot determine the nature of one's employment. Whether one has the power to control or supervise the work of others below him can be the ultimate test in this regard and not his designation or salary. The application of the ratio decidendi of a judgment in a particular case cannot be straight away applied to all cases; contextual dissimilarities can demand a departure.
As an Assistant Engineer in the Maintenance wing or department of the Factory, you will attend to breakdowns and lubrication of machineries not alone but with the team of fitters, mechanics, oilers, etc. In your presence, on-the-spot repairs are carried out. Thus, you become the supervisor of the entire operations. So, in my opinion, you cannot be treated as a workman or a mere technician.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
6185Concepts change from time to time. Very long back, management was synonymous with ownership. With the emergence of Joint-stock Companies, ownership was separated from management. The powers of the single manager got diluted after the emergence of specialization or professionalization of the different aspects of management. Despite such changes, what remains intact are the aspects of control and supervision in any activity of human endeavor which requires the involvement of more than a single person in its accomplishment. Therefore, the absence of certain managerial powers cannot determine the nature of one's employment. Whether one has the power to control or supervise the work of others below him can be the ultimate test in this regard and not his designation or salary. The application of the ratio decidendi of a judgment in a particular case cannot be straight away applied to all cases; contextual dissimilarities can demand a departure.
As an Assistant Engineer in the Maintenance wing or department of the Factory, you will attend to breakdowns and lubrication of machineries not alone but with the team of fitters, mechanics, oilers, etc. In your presence, on-the-spot repairs are carried out. Thus, you become the supervisor of the entire operations. So, in my opinion, you cannot be treated as a workman or a mere technician.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Dear,
Although our senior fraternity, Mr. Umakanthan, has rightly explained above that a person performing a nature of duty in a scenario given cannot be correlated with another person delivering the same set of duties elsewhere, as the situation and conditions may be different. Section 2s of the Industrial Dispute Act remains a controversial subject to decide who is a workman and who is not. A workman enjoys certain job security granted by the section under the so-mentioned ID Act, and employers always try to claim the person as not a workman whenever things go wrong. However, as you have mentioned that you do not enjoy any supervisory powers given in writing and do not have rights for making duty rosters, preparing any confidential reports, and also cannot give any week off, leaves, etc., in my opinion, you are covered under the definition of a workman.
Furthermore, an employee can also claim themselves as a workman whenever a dispute arises. The competent authority to whom the case goes decides in such cases whether the person is a workman or not.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Although our senior fraternity, Mr. Umakanthan, has rightly explained above that a person performing a nature of duty in a scenario given cannot be correlated with another person delivering the same set of duties elsewhere, as the situation and conditions may be different. Section 2s of the Industrial Dispute Act remains a controversial subject to decide who is a workman and who is not. A workman enjoys certain job security granted by the section under the so-mentioned ID Act, and employers always try to claim the person as not a workman whenever things go wrong. However, as you have mentioned that you do not enjoy any supervisory powers given in writing and do not have rights for making duty rosters, preparing any confidential reports, and also cannot give any week off, leaves, etc., in my opinion, you are covered under the definition of a workman.
Furthermore, an employee can also claim themselves as a workman whenever a dispute arises. The competent authority to whom the case goes decides in such cases whether the person is a workman or not.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Why do you ask this is not understood? You need to understand as per the explanation of Mr. Umakanthan.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act"), the courts have enlarged the scope and applicability of this Act by giving wide interpretation to the term "workman." The Section 2(s) defines workman as 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, terms of employment be express or implied and includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged, or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of dispute. [It excludes persons employed in army/Navy/Air Force/Police and those employed in mainly managerial or administrative, supervisory capacity and drawing wages...]
The different courts have interpreted this definition and have identified various determining factors to know whether a person is a "workman" or not. Over a period of time, courts have interpreted specific points of contention in the definition under the ID Act which has enlarged the scope of the legislation. There is nothing clear; it varies from case to case and court to court, even with different orders of the Apex Court.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act"), the courts have enlarged the scope and applicability of this Act by giving wide interpretation to the term "workman." The Section 2(s) defines workman as 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, terms of employment be express or implied and includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged, or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of dispute. [It excludes persons employed in army/Navy/Air Force/Police and those employed in mainly managerial or administrative, supervisory capacity and drawing wages...]
The different courts have interpreted this definition and have identified various determining factors to know whether a person is a "workman" or not. Over a period of time, courts have interpreted specific points of contention in the definition under the ID Act which has enlarged the scope of the legislation. There is nothing clear; it varies from case to case and court to court, even with different orders of the Apex Court.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Suhas,
Mr. Natharao has aptly highlighted the legal nuances relevant to your case. However, considering the fact that you do not directly supervise anybody's work, lack the authority to appraise performance or grant leave, in my opinion, you have a greater chance of being treated as a workman under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Mr. Natharao has aptly highlighted the legal nuances relevant to your case. However, considering the fact that you do not directly supervise anybody's work, lack the authority to appraise performance or grant leave, in my opinion, you have a greater chance of being treated as a workman under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
Working with communities.ppt
Occupational Safety, Health & Working Conditions Code 2019.pdf
How To Get The Best Out Of Working For A Bad Boss.doc