Hi members,
Can a person designated as Manager (drawing more than Rs. 18,000/-) seek relief through representation to the Labour Commissioner? Is he qualified to be a 'workman' for grievance redressal through the Labour Commissioner's office?
Thanks in anticipation.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Can a person designated as Manager (drawing more than Rs. 18,000/-) seek relief through representation to the Labour Commissioner? Is he qualified to be a 'workman' for grievance redressal through the Labour Commissioner's office?
Thanks in anticipation.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear friend,
There is no mention in your post about the nature of the individual's employment grievance. Generally, the mere nomenclature of the designation of a job or the amount of salary is not a decisive factor in determining whether the person employed in it is a 'workman', 'supervisor', or 'manager'. On the other hand, it is the principal and predominant nature of duties actually performed by him as per the orders of the employer.
The question of whether a person employed is a workman or not is also an industrial dispute that can only be resolved by adjudication. Therefore, if the grievance is discharge, retrenchment, or dismissal, such a person can approach the conciliation officer first under Section 2-A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and in case of failure, he can approach the Labor Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Act.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
6185There is no mention in your post about the nature of the individual's employment grievance. Generally, the mere nomenclature of the designation of a job or the amount of salary is not a decisive factor in determining whether the person employed in it is a 'workman', 'supervisor', or 'manager'. On the other hand, it is the principal and predominant nature of duties actually performed by him as per the orders of the employer.
The question of whether a person employed is a workman or not is also an industrial dispute that can only be resolved by adjudication. Therefore, if the grievance is discharge, retrenchment, or dismissal, such a person can approach the conciliation officer first under Section 2-A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and in case of failure, he can approach the Labor Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Act.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Colleague,
Kindly have a perusal of the definition of "Workman" under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947:
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
(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 six hundred rupees 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.]
In general " Person employed mainly in Managerial Capacity are excluded from the definition of " Workman" But he should be Manager in Letter and Sprit. Only designating some one as Manager but engaging him in non-managerial activities mainly will make him as Workman and in such case he will be proving that the name " Manager" was only in paper but really he worked in Clerical or other Technical Jobs mainly.
In short if the person is Manager in letter and sprit and really he as working as " Manager" then he many not seek relief under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as he will not be deemed to be Workman. But he is open to seek Civil relief through Court. Hence take call suitably based on real practice and real factual engagement of the employee as Manager or otherwise
All the Best, God Bless,
Dr.P.SIVAKUMAR
Doctor Siva Global HR
Tamil Nadu
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Kindly have a perusal of the definition of "Workman" under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947:
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
(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 six hundred rupees 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.]
In general " Person employed mainly in Managerial Capacity are excluded from the definition of " Workman" But he should be Manager in Letter and Sprit. Only designating some one as Manager but engaging him in non-managerial activities mainly will make him as Workman and in such case he will be proving that the name " Manager" was only in paper but really he worked in Clerical or other Technical Jobs mainly.
In short if the person is Manager in letter and sprit and really he as working as " Manager" then he many not seek relief under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as he will not be deemed to be Workman. But he is open to seek Civil relief through Court. Hence take call suitably based on real practice and real factual engagement of the employee as Manager or otherwise
All the Best, God Bless,
Dr.P.SIVAKUMAR
Doctor Siva Global HR
Tamil Nadu
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you both, Mr. Umakanthan and Dr. Sivakumar. Yes, he was playing the role of a manager and not doing any clerical work. Further, to answer Mr. Umakanthan, the grievance is about dismissal, against which he has approached the Labour Commissioner.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Colleague,
In such a given fact, the Manager cannot seek remedy under the Provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. You can defend your case suitably. However, a Civil Suit may be raised by the Manager, which kindly take note of.
All the Best, God Bless,
Dr. P. Sivakumar
Doctor Siva Global HR
Tamil Nadu
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In such a given fact, the Manager cannot seek remedy under the Provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. You can defend your case suitably. However, a Civil Suit may be raised by the Manager, which kindly take note of.
All the Best, God Bless,
Dr. P. Sivakumar
Doctor Siva Global HR
Tamil Nadu
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear colleague,
The issue of whether someone is a workman or a non-workman is to be decided, when contested, by the adjudicating authority on merits under the Industrial Disputes Act/Rules.
Therefore, to opine that the so-called Manager cannot knock the doors of the authorities under the said Act is premature.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR and Employee Relations Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The issue of whether someone is a workman or a non-workman is to be decided, when contested, by the adjudicating authority on merits under the Industrial Disputes Act/Rules.
Therefore, to opine that the so-called Manager cannot knock the doors of the authorities under the said Act is premature.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR and Employee Relations Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The detailed information provided by all is appreciated. At the same time, I have a question that needs clarification. The employees in charge of the stores, employed and paid under the administrative category, fall under the category of workman or not?
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The payment does not decide; rather, the job responsibility and nature of work performed in an establishment decide whether the person is a workman, supervisor, or manager.
A peon draws more than Rs. 18,000! Can we consider him as a manager?
The Labour Commissioner would decide whether the representation made is acceptable or likely to be rejected. The authority would definitely look into the fact if the person could prove himself as a 'workman' but not a manager just wearing an ornamental designation 'Manager'.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
A peon draws more than Rs. 18,000! Can we consider him as a manager?
The Labour Commissioner would decide whether the representation made is acceptable or likely to be rejected. The authority would definitely look into the fact if the person could prove himself as a 'workman' but not a manager just wearing an ornamental designation 'Manager'.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is true that an attender may have a higher salary than the manager is getting. However, what is relevant are his functional rights and not just the salary. If this individual has the authority to approve leaves for subordinates, initiate disciplinary actions against them, or appraise their performance, then he should be considered a manager. A person with the title of manager but without these rights should only be classified as a workman. There have been some verdicts by the Supreme Court on this matter, but unfortunately, I failed to find the citation.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Register and Log In.
H.R.Manager - Job Chart.doc
152120-very-use ful-hr-manageme nt-software-bui lt-excel-psa-hr -manager-mainta in-payrrol-exce l-soft.zip
Signs of a Good Manager.ppt