Labour

Law I

IDRISH
MOHAMMED
Labour Law
 New Delhi
M AY 2 0 2 5

S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
What is Labour?

• Human effort

• Purposeful activity

• Economic Value

• Skill/Expertise

• Perishability

• Compensation
Labour & Innovation

• Supply of Labour

• Demand of Labour

• Cost of Labour

• Production challenges

• Handmade vs Machine made

• Defense use vs Civil Use

Example of Labour in our
lives/society?
 Ancient Slavery (Egypt, Greece, Rome): Labour as
Key forced, unfree work.

Milestones Medieval Guilds (12th–15th centuries): Skilled work,

collective bargaining for artisans.
in the
Evolution Industrial Revolution (18th–19th centuries):
Mechanized production, factory labour, exploitation,
emergence of trade unions.
of Labour Labour Legislation (19th–20th centuries): Protection of
workers, creation of minimum wage laws, safety
standards.
Globalization (Late 20th century onwards): Outsourcing,
gig economy, technological disruptions.

Current Trends: Work automation, ethical labour

practices, gig economy regulation, and remote work.
Idea of Labour/Role of Labour in
Economy

01 02 03 04 05
Raw Machiner Wages: Total Market
Material: y: 150 60 INR Cost: 210 Price:
100 INR INR INR 300 INR
Favorite
Brand?
Labour Law
Law

Economic Human
s Rights
Laissez Faire vs Rule of Law

• Dicey’s Concept of Rule of Law

• Wherever there is discretion, there is a room for arbitrariness which may lead to
insecurity of legal freedom of the citizen.
• Discretion of employer may lead to exploitation.
Labour Law
• Why do you need labour laws? Why not just a contract between parties?

• Employment Laws?

• Parties in labour laws? Employer, Employee, State, Judiciary

12th Feb 2025
ILO Declaration of Philadelphia

• Social justice as the foundation of lasting peace.

• Economic security and equal opportunity for all.

• Universal human rights and dignity in work.

ILO Declaration of Philadelphia

• Centrality of human rights to social policy, and

• Need for international economic planning.

ILO Declaration of Philadelphia

• Labour is not a commodity;

• Freedom of expression and of association are essential to progress;

• Poverty anywhere constitutes a danger to prosperity everywhere;

• All human beings, irrespective of race, creed, or sex, have the right to pursue
both their material well-being and their spiritual development in conditions of
freedom and dignity, of economic security, and equal opportunity.
ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles
and Rights at Work
• Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining: Workers and employers
have the right to form and join organizations.
• Elimination of Forced or Compulsory Labor: Prohibition of all forms of forced
labor.
• Abolition of Child Labor: Elimination of the worst forms of child labor.

• Elimination of Discrimination in Employment: Equal opportunities and

treatment in the workplace.
1990s

• Fall of Berlin War

• Disintegration of Soviet Union

• LPG Policy introduction

• Wave of Democracy
DFPR: Avoids protectionist trade measures and
acknowledges the comparative advantage of countries.
• Consider two countries, Country A and Country B.

• Country A is a developed nation with strong labor laws, including regulations

that ensure high minimum wages and strict work conditions. It produces textiles
with high-quality standards but at a higher cost due to its labor regulations.
• Country B is a developing nation with lower labor standards. It produces textiles
at a significantly lower cost but doesn't provide the same level of wages or
working conditions as Country A.
DFPR: Avoids protectionist trade measures and
acknowledges the comparative advantage of countries.
• If Country A were to use its strong labor standards to impose tariffs on textiles
imported from Country B on the grounds that Country B's labor practices are
exploitative, this could be viewed as protectionist. Such measures might protect
local jobs in Country A but could harm the economy of Country B and the rights
of workers there.
• The DFPR encourages countries to support labor rights in ways that do not inhibit
international trade or competitiveness. Instead of imposing trade barriers, the ILO
advocates for promoting compliance with labor standards through assistance and
dialogue, thus supporting worker rights while also allowing countries to engage
freely in trade based on their comparative advantages.
DFPR: Hierarchy of rights within the ILO

• DFPR establishes a hierarchy of labor rights within the ILO, therefore,

distinguishing between what it classifies as "fundamental principles and rights"
and other labor standards that may not hold the same status. This hierarchy
underscores that certain rights are considered essential to the dignity of workers
and are therefore prioritized globally.
DFPR: Hierarchy of rights within the ILO
Fundamental Principles and Rights Non-Fundamental Labor Standards
(Basic Human Rights)
• Freedom of Association and Right to • Minimum Wage Laws
Collective Bargaining • Occupational Safety and Health
• Elimination of Forced Labor Regulations
• Abolition of Child Labor
• Elimination of Discrimination
DFPR: Hierarchy of rights within the ILO

• The ILO's selection of basic human rights corresponded to civil and political
rights, excluding labor standards related to minimum wages and social security. 4
• The fundamental principles are seen as a means to achieve fair share of wealth
and human potential.
Non-Ratification of Fundamental
Conventions
• India has a poor ratification record of fundamental conventions in South Asia.

• Constitutional Provisions

• Economic Considerations

• Social and Political Factors

• Implementation Challenges

• Prioritization of Rights

• Historical Context
Non-Ratification of Fundamental
Conventions
• Limitations on freedom of association for government employees and
constitutional provisions permitting prohibition of association for security
forces. 6
• The government stated that existing laws and practices pertaining to public
servants do not fully meet the requirements of Conventions Nos 87 and 98.
• So are armed forces/police/para-military forces/bureaucrats exempted from
labour laws?
17th Feb 2025
Why do we need equality in the
society?
Distributive Justice and Labour Law

• Redistribution is a primary goal of labor law, often implicitly as a shorthand for

distributive justice, focusing on income and job opportunities.
• Excludes redistribution solely for dignity but includes instrumental justifications
related to equality, distinguishing between distributional equality and other forms
of equality.
• The practical motivation (of distributive justice) is the growing division between
worker groups, necessitating examination through the lens of distributive justice.
Distributive Justice and Labour Law

• Significance of addressing growing disparities: Social justice, economic

stability, Worker Morale and Productivity, Legal and Ethical Responsibility, Political
Stability, Long-term Development (Sustainability).
• Why Labour Laws are examined through the lens of distributive justice:
Addressing inequality, enhancing fairness, promoting social cohesion,
empowering marginalized workers.
Desert-Based Distribution (Merit based Justice)
• The concept of people getting what they deserve aligns with common-sense justice,
rewarding contribution or effort, which can justify market interventions.
• Luck egalitarianism argues against desert-based distribution, asserting that factors beyond
control should not determine distributions, advocating for neutralizing unequal talents.
• Rewarding contribution and effort is just, and this aligns with Ronald Dworkin’s hypothetical
insurance system, wherein people would insure themselves against lacking marketable
talents.
• Labor law implications include anti-discrimination laws, pay equity, and minimum wage
laws, supporting fair compensation reflecting contribution and effort.
Desert-Based Distribution (Justice)
• Core Principle: Desert-based distribution asserts that individuals should receive
rewards and resources based on their contributions, efforts, and merits,
emphasizing deservingness as a key measure of fairness.
• Support for Labor Law: It underpins merit-based compensation practices and
anti-discrimination laws, advocating for evaluations based on relevant factors
such as effort and contribution rather than irrelevant attributes like race or
gender.
• Critiques and Challenges: The principle is critiqued for the difficulties in
objectively assessing deservingness and potential biases, as well as the risk of
perpetuating inequalities when structural disadvantages are not considered.
Redistributing to Achieve Equal
Distribution
• Luck egalitarians advocate neutralizing factors people aren't responsible for,
necessitating redistribution, whereas relational egalitarians focus on social
equality, fighting oppression.
• Rawls's difference principle justifies inequalities only if they benefit the least
advantaged, balancing justice with efficiency, whereas subsequent contributions
question what exactly should be equalized.
• Distributional equality theories in labor law support anti-discrimination laws,
affirmative action, pay equity, reducing wage differentials, minimum wage, and
redistribution of power and risks through union support and unjust dismissal laws.
Redistribution to Advance Relational
Equality
• Relational equality prioritizes equal status and treatment, requiring a basic
resource level for societal functioning, aligning with a sufficientarian approach
and the capabilities approach.
• Anderson advocates for ensuring freedom to achieve valued functioning,
including access to production means, education, occupational choice, fair labor
value, and contribution recognition.
• Labor law implications involve mechanisms like minimum wage, accommodations
for people with disabilities, protections for precarious workers, compressed wage
differences within firms, and laws against workplace discrimination.
Implications for Intra-Worker
Distribution
• Distributive justice is an important but relatively neglected goal of labor law, with
various theories supporting basic protections and differing in emphasis.
• Theories of distributive justice highlight the lack of current laws in addressing
two-tier labor markets, supporting interventions to address intra-worker
disparities and prevent secondary markets.
• A market economy has to involve luck to some extent, but a maximum wage law,
limiting the ratio between the top and bottom salaries in the same firm, is an
important technique to limit distributive injustice.
19th Feb 2025
Gender

• 24 states with laws that limit women’s participation in various kinds of factory
operations
• Factories Act and other labour laws, women are prohibited from working in
various industrial processes even during the day
• Societal policing
Gender
Intersectional Inequalities

• Class

• Caste: Presidential Guard Regiment

• Religion:

• Language

• Disability

• Region
Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan 1997 (6)
SCC 241
• PIL after Bhanwari Devi rape case.

• Focus on lack of legal framework to address sexual harassment at the workplace.

• Absence of specific laws to protect women in workplaces.

• Set the stage for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013.
THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT
WORKPLACE (PREVENTION, PROHIBITION
AND REDRESSAL) ACT, 2013
POST Act
• Internal Complaint Committee – S.4

• Local Complaint Committee – S.5-7

• Complaint of Sexual Harassment – S.9

• Conciliation – S.10

• Inquiry – S.11

• Action During Pending of Inquiry – S.12

• Inquiry Report – S.13

• Punishment for False Complaint – S.14

Internal Complaint Committee

• Presiding Officer

• Two Members (Employees)

• One Member (NGO)

• At least one-half of the total Members – Women

Ms. X v. ANI Technologies Private Limited,
WP No. 8127 of 2019
• The driver-subscribers of the Respondent were its ‘employees’ for the purposes of
the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act.
• The Respondent was in violation of the POSH Act for not taking any action against
a driver-subscriber despite several attempts of the aggrieved customer to seek
redressal.
•Ananya, a transgender woman, and Raj, a cisgender man, are employees at Tech Innovate. Over the past three months, Ananya has been
experiencing a series of harassment incidents at work. Initially, it began with her colleagues making jokes about her gender identity
during meetings. Whenever Ananya expressed discomfort, her colleagues would laugh it off as harmless fun. She raised the issue with
her manager, but he failed to address the matter seriously.

•These jokes soon escalated to anonymous notes left on her desk, containing inappropriate and offensive remarks about her gender
identity and appearance. More recently, Ananya has been receiving inappropriate messages on her personal social media accounts from
unknown profiles. These messages include unwelcome comments on her sexuality and frequently question her professional integrity.
Despite her best efforts to focus on her work, these repeated incidents have left Ananya feeling anxious and unsure of her place within
the company.

•In a separate incident, Raj was harassed while commuting to work on the company-provided shuttle bus. During a morning ride, a
group of male colleagues made suggestive comments about his physique and personal life, implying inappropriate relationships with
female colleagues at work. Although this was a single incident that occurred outside the office premises, it left Raj feeling deeply
unsettled. He is now concerned about the possibility of future harassment and fears that it may impact his professional reputation.

•Tech Innovate has a workplace harassment policy that aims to provide a safe environment for all employees. However, the policy does
not clearly address incidents of indirect harassment or those occurring outside the workplace. This ambiguity has left both Ananya and
Raj uncertain about whether their experiences fall under the policy's protection and what steps they can take to address the harassment.
• Analyse the situations faced by Ananya and Raj to determine if these incidents constitute sexual harassment.
• Discuss the remedies and legal protections that are available to Ananya and Raj. What steps can they take to
address the harassment, and what responsibilities does the employer have in ensuring a safe and respectful work
environment, considering they are complying with the sexual harassment laws?
Industrial Dispute
• Industrial Dispute: A conflict or disagreement between employers and employees, or
between groups of employees, regarding employment terms, conditions, or workplace
practices.
• Key Parties Involved:
• Employers or management.
• Employees, trade unions, or worker representatives.

“The Industrial Disputes Act is a benign measure, which seeks to pre-empt industrial tensions,
provide the mechanics of dispute- resolutions and set up the necessary infrastructure, so that the
energies of the partners in production may not be dissipated in counter-productive battles and the
assurance of industrial justice may create a climate of goodwill”.
(Life Insurance Corp. of India v. DJ Bahadur, 1980)
Industrial Dispute
• Economic Pressures
• Disagreements over salary adjustments, bonuses, or overall compensation
• Demands for improved benefits like healthcare and pension plans
• Conflicts around profit-sharing schemes or other incentives

• Workplace Conditions
• Unsafe or inadequate work environments
• Issues with long hours or unfair shift schedules
• Lack of necessary resources or facilities
Industrial Dispute
• Management Issues
• Perceived unfair treatment or instances of discrimination
• Poor communication or a lack of transparency from management
• Authoritarian management styles that are not supportive

• Employment Terms
• Concerns over job security, layoffs, or involuntary transfers
• Violation of employment agreements or contracts
• Issues related to promotion opportunities or demotions
Industrial Dispute
• Labor Policies
• Practices seen as anti-union or unfair to workers
• Disputes over terms in collective bargaining agreements
• Unilateral changes to policies without employee input

• Psychosocial Factors
• Low job satisfaction or lack of employee motivation
• Harassment or bullying occurring in the workplace
• Struggles with maintaining a work-life balance
Industrial Dispute
• External Influences
• Economic challenges like inflation or downturns impacting workers’ pay
• Changes in government regulations or labor laws
• Influence or actions from trade unions or outside organizations

• Technological Shifts
• Introduction of automation or technology reducing workforce needs
• Resistance to new work process es or shifting job roles
Industrial Dispute
• Impact:
• Disruption to business operations.
• Financial losses for both employers and employees.
• Potential damage to employer-employee relationships.
• Broader economic or social consequences.

• Consequence of Industrial Disputes:

• Strikes (work stoppages by employees).
• Lockouts (employers preventing employees from working).
• Grievances or protests.
• Go-slows or work-to-rule actions.
Industrial Dispute
• Resolution Mechanisms:
• Negotiation between parties.
• Mediation or conciliation by a third party.
• Arbitration or legal intervention.
• Government or labor tribunal involvement.
Industrial Dispute
• Appropriate Government

• Industry

• Industrial Dispute

• Worker/Employee/Workmen
Industrial Dispute
• Lay-off

• Strike

• Lockout

• Retrenchment

• Closure

• Unfair Labour Practices

Industrial Dispute
• Collective Bargaining

• Trade Unions
Wage & Remuneration
• Equal Remuneration

• Living Wage

• Minimum Wage

• Fair Wage
03 March 2025
 Appropriate
Industry/Entity
Government
Industries carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government Central Government
Railway Company Central Government
Controlled Industry (specified by the Central Government) Central Government
Dock Labour Board (established under Section 5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment)
Central Government
Act, 1948)
Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited (under the Companies Act, 1956) Central Government
Employees' State Insurance Corporation (under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act,
Central Government
1948)
Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (Board of Trustees under Section
Central Government
3A)

Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Central Board of Trustees) Central Government

Life Insurance Corporation of India (under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956) Central Government

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (under the Companies Act, 1956) Central Government
Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance Act,
Central Government
1961)

Central Warehousing Corporation (under Section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962) Central Government

Unit Trust of India (under Section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963) Central Government

Food Corporation of India (under Section 3 or Section 16 of the Food Corporations Act, 1964) Central Government

Airports Authority of India (under Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994) Central Government

Regional Rural Bank (under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976) Central Government
Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Central Government

National Housing Bank (under Section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987) Central Government

Air Transport Service Central Government

Banking or Insurance Companies Central Government

Mines Central Government

Oil Fields Central Government

Cantonment Board Central Government

Major Ports Central Government

Company with 51% paid-up share capital held by the Central Government Central Government

Corporations established by or under any law made by Parliament Central Government

Central Public Sector Undertaking Central Government

Subsidiary Companies of Central Public Sector Undertakings Central Government

Autonomous Bodies owned or controlled by the Central Government Central Government

 Industry/Entity Appropriate Government

State Public Sector Undertaking State Government

Subsidiary Companies set up by the Principal State Public Sector Undertaking State Government

Autonomous Bodies owned or controlled by the State Government State Government

Central Government or State

Industrial Dispute between Contractor and Contract Labour (in an industrial
Government (depending on which government has
establishment)
control over the industrial establishment)
Role of Appropriate Government
• Works Committee
• Conciliation Officer
• Board of Conciliation
• Court of Inquiry
• Labour Courts
• Tribunals
• Reference of dispute
• Publication of reports/awards
• Strike/Lock-out notice
• Nature of industry
Appropriate Government

• It refers to the authority (Central or State) responsible for resolving and

managing industrial disputes within its jurisdiction.
• This division reflects the federal structure where the responsibility for handling
industrial relations is shared between the Central and State governments based
on the nature of the industry and its location.
Appropriate Government & Federal
Structure
• The federal structure of government helps ensure that industrial disputes are
managed at the level where they are most relevant and manageable.
• It prevents a one-size-fits-all approach and recognizes the diversity of industries
across the country, allowing for localized decision-making while maintaining
consistency in labor law application.
• It also ensures that both state and central governments can develop policies that
cater to regional economic conditions while ensuring national standards in labor
practices.
SAIL vs. National Union Water Front
Workers
Expression "appropriate government" in Section 2(1)(a) of CLRA Act - Meaning of
(i) Central Government will be the appropriate Government in relation to an industrial dispute
concerning -
a. any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, or by a railway
company; or
b. any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government; or

c. the enumerated industries.

• In relation to any other establishment, the Government of the State, in which the
establishment in question is situated, will be the appropriate Government.
SAIL vs. National Union Water Front
Workers
(ii) An industry being carried on under the authority of the central Government cannot be equated with any
industry carried on by the Central Government itself.
Any industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government implies an industry which is carried on
by virtue, of, pursuant to, conferment of, grant of, or delegation of power or permission by the Central
Government to a Central Government Company or other Government Company / undertaking.
• (iii) Instrumentality of a Central/State Government or being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution cannot be determinative of the question as to whether an industry carried on by a Company/
Corporation or an instrumentality of the Government, by or under the authority of the Central Government,
for the purpose of or within the meaning of the definition of appropriate Government in the CLRA Act.
• Criterion is whether an undertaking instrumentality of Government is carrying on an industry under the
authority of the Central Government and not whether the undertaking is instrumentality or agency of the
Government for purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution, be it of Central Government or State Government.
Appropriate Government

• Appropriate Government can be Center or State depending on nature of the

institution.
• Appropriate Government is responsible for resolving the industrial dispute.

• The Appropriate Government is empowered to appoint authorities, such as tribunals or

labor courts, to resolve disputes.
• It is responsible for ensuring the enforcement of awards and settlements in industrial
disputes.
• In cases of inter-state industrial disputes, both Central and State governments may
play a role, depending on the nature of the conflict.
Industry

• Section 2(j):

“Industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes
any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen;
• Substantive and Inclusive

• Employer and Employee

Safdarjung Hospital vs Kuldip Singh
Sethi
• First and second part cannot be read in isolation.
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewarage Board vs A
Rajappa

• Two Tests to determine:

• 1. The Triple Test
• 2. Dominant Nature Test
Triple Test:
• Systematic activity
• The co-operation of employees and employers
• Production and distribution of goods and services for the satisfaction of material
requirements of the people.
DOMINANT NATURE TEST

• Where there are several activities, some qualify for the exemption and some do not.

• Where some of the employees in the undertaking are not “workmen”.

• Where some departments are not productive of the goods and services if isolated.

• The nature of the department should be the true test.

• The whole undertaking will be under the purview of the definition of ‘industry’
although those who are not under the definition of ‘workmen’ will not benefit from
the status.
Assignment for Next Class

• Municipal Corporation: D.N. Banerjee v. P.R. Mukherjee

• Hospital: (i) Safdarjung Hospital vs Kuldip Singh Sethi (ii) The Management Of
Hospitals, Orissa vs Their Class Iv Employees
• Educational Institution: University of Delhi vs Ram Nath

• Clubs: (i) Madras Gymkhana Club Employees’ Union vs Management (ii) Cricket
Club of India vs Bombay Labour Union
• Solicitor Firm: National Union of Commercial Employees vs M R Meher

• Research Center/Institute: Physical Research Laboratory v K.G. Sharma

05 March 2025

• Workmen

• Industrial Dispute
Municipality

• In D.N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukherjee (1953), the Court held that while the
activities of a municipal corporation do not strictly fall within the definition of
'business' or 'trade', they could be seen as analogous to 'undertakings' which can
constitute an industry within the confines of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
• SC further clarified in Baroda Borough Municipality v. Its Workman (1957)
that activities carried out by a municipality that could qualify as industry would
depend on whether those activities, if performed by a private individual, would
be considered an industry too.
Municipality
• The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa case (1978) introduced
the "triple test" to determine if an activity constitutes an industry. This test considers: (i)
whether the activity is systematic, (ii) whether it involves cooperation between employers and
employees, and (iii) if it provides goods or services to satisfy human wants.
• The predominant functions of a municipality determine its classification as an industry; regal
functions are excluded, while welfare activities can be included.
• Consequently, certain departments within municipalities, such as public conveyance, health,
and fire services, may be classified as industries as they engage in organized activities
involving employment relations.
• It recognizes the organized activities, not not the personal or private one.
Hospitals

• State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (1960): SC held that hospitals

run as a business may constitute an industry; however, it established that
government-run hospitals may not fit this definition, especially when they're
operated primarily to provide free health services.
• In Management of Safdarjung Hospital v. Kuldip Singh Sethi (1970), the
Supreme Court took a stance that governmental hospitals, which operate under a
charitable or non-profit model without a commercial motive, do not qualify as
industries.
Hospitals

• Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978):

According to this test, if a hospital meets these criteria, it may be classified as an
industry, regardless of its profit motive.
• The distinction lies in the nature of operation: hospitals run on commercial
lines (for profit) are more likely to be classified as industries, whereas those
operated under the umbrella of governmental functions that provide free services
are generally excluded from this classification.
Educational Institutions

• In University of Delhi v. Ram Nath(1963), SC held that educational

institutions, primarily characterized by their role in imparting education, should
not be considered industries under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court stated
that the work of teaching is not analogous to skilled or unskilled manual,
technical, or clerical work, and thus, teachers are excluded from being classified
as 'workmen' under the Act.
• Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa
Educational Institutions

• Miss A. Sundarambal vs Government Of Goa, Daman And Diu & Ors (1988):

Even though an educational institution has to be treated as an industry, the teachers employed by
educational institutions whether the said institutions are imparting primary, secondary, graduate or post
graduate education cannot be called as 'workmen' within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act. Imparting
of education which is the main function of teachers cannot be considered as skilled or unskilled manual
work or supervisory work or technical work or clerical work. Imparting of education is in the nature of a
mission or a noble vocation. A teacher educates children, he moulds their character, builds up their
personality and makes them fit to become responsible citizens. Children grow under the care of teachers.
The clerical work, if any they may do, is only incidental to their principal work of teaching.
Clubs

• Secretary Madras Gymkhana Club Employees' Union v. Management of

the Gymkhana Club (1968): SC held that not every human activity involving an
employer-employee relationship constitutes an industry. Specifically, it concluded
that a members' club, such as the Madras Gymkhana Club, providing recreational
facilities for its members was not an industry.
• The Court reasoned that the services provided by clubs are often self-serving for
members, and do not operate with the primary intent of earning profits like
traditional businesses. The emphasis was on the nature of activities where
personal services, catered to members, do not fit the definition of industry as set
out in the Industrial Disputes Act.
Clubs

• Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978)

• Now Clubs fall within the definition of industry. Motive of profit has become
irrelevant.
Solicitor’s Firm

• In National Union of Commercial Employees v. M.R. Meher (1962), SC ruled

that a solicitor's firm does not fall within the definition of an 'industry' as outlined
in Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court reasoned that the work
done by solicitors is inherently individualistic and professional. The cooperation
between solicitors and their employees does not directly relate to the production
of goods or the rendering of services in the manner required to qualify as an
industry.
• Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978)
NGO/Charitable Institutions

• Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978)

Twist in the Plot

• Physical Research Laboratory v. K.G. Sharma (PRL) (1997) – Division Bench

• State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh (Jai Bir Singh) (2005) – 5 Judges Bench
Twist in
the Plot –
IRC 2020
17 March 2025

• Industrial Dispute

• Workmen
Industrial Dispute

• Section 2(k)

“Industrial Dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and

employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and
workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the
terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person.
Industrial Dispute

Therefore:
• There should be a dispute or difference;

• The dispute or difference should be between employers and employers, or

between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen.
• The dispute or difference must be connected with the employment or non-
employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any
person.
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate vs
Management
• FACTS: Banerjee was appointed as the Assistant Medical officer on three months' probation.
After three months his services were terminated with one month’s salary in lieu of notice.
Reason cited was medical incompetency.
• Preilminary objection: whether a dispute concerning a person who is not a workman can be an
industrial dispute or not?
• The question in this case was with regard to term “any person” that was occurring in the third
part of the definition. The Act gives a restrictive meaning to the word workmen. While
referring to the ‘solidarity of labour’ the Court held that the workmen could raise a dispute in
respect of those persons only in the employment or non-employment of whom they have
direct or substantial interest. Hence, any person would include a person who is not a workman
Workmen v Dharampal Premchand
(Saughandi)
• Eighteen employees of a commercial establishment was dismissed. Their cause was
espoused by the MERCANTILE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION DELHI whose membership was not
confined to the establishment alone. The dispute was further referred by the government to
the industrial tribunal.
• Question: whether the dispute referred is an industrial dispute or not? (Individual dispute v.
Industrial Dispute)
• Holding: In every case where industrial adjudication has to decide whether a reference in
regard to the dismissal of an industrial employee is validly made or not, it would always be
necessary to enquire whether the union which has sponsored the case can fairly claim a
representative character in such a way that it support to the cause would make the dispute
an industrial dispute.
Workmen v Dharampal Premchand
(Saughandi)
• Some cases the union of workmen working in one industry may be competent to
raise a dispute about the wrongful dismissal of an employee engaged in an
establishment have no union of their own, and an appreciable number of such
workmen had joined such other union before their dismissal.
• If the eighteen workmen are dismissed by an order passed on the same day, it
would be unreasonable to hold that they themselves do not form a group of
workmen which would be justified in supporting the cause of one another
Industrial Dispute vs Individual
Dispute
• Workmen vs Dharmpal Premchand

Unless supported by Union or a substantial number of workmen.

• What is a substantial number of workmen?

• Termination as Dispute.

• Dispute after death?

Industrial Dispute

• Once a dispute has been referred for adjudication, can the maintainability of it be
challenged before the forum?
• A person was offered a job but was not given appointment. Covers S. 2(k)?
Workmen
Section 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 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.]
Workmen
• Dharangadhara Chemical Works v. Management AIR 1957 SC 264

• Diwan Mohideen Sahib v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras AIR 1966 SC 370

• Workmen of the Canteen of Coates of India Ltd v. Coates of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 547

• Workmen of Nilgiri Cooperative Marketing Society v. State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 3 SCC 514

• HussainBhai v. Alath Factory Employees Union (1978) 4 SCC 257

• SK Verma v. Mahesh Chandra (1983) II LLJ 429 1983 (4) SCC 214

• Miss A. Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa 1989 (1) LLJ 61

• HR Adhyantaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. (1994) 5 SCC 737

• SK Maini v. M/S Carona Sahu Company Ltd. (1994) 3 SCC 510

Legal Assistant as Workmen

• Sonipat Co-op Sugar Mills v. Ajit Singh,

The question raised was whether a legal assistant falls under the definition of
‘workman’. The court in this regard held that any person doing a job which requires
creativity, innovation and application of mind, cannot be categorized as a
‘workman’. The work of a legal assistant involved creativity, innovation and
requires application of mind in case of drafting of pleadings etc.
Whether the agarias (salt workers)
were workmen or independent contractors.
• Dharangadhara Chemical Works v. Management AIR 1957 SC 264

• Test of Employment Relationship:

The Court held that the primary test for determining a workman is the existence
of a master-servant relationship(employer-employee relationship).
If the employer has control and supervision over the worker's activities, the
worker qualifies as a workman.
Whether the agarias (salt workers)
were workmen or independent contractors.
• Supervision and Control:

Even if a worker has some freedom in how they do their work, if the employer retains overall
control and supervision, they are still a workman.
The Court rejected the argument that agarias were independent contractors merely because they
worked on a piece-rate basis.
• Substance Over Form:

The Court emphasized that the nature of work matters more than the mode of payment or
the contractual terms.
Just calling someone an independent contractor does not take them out of the definition
of workman if they work under the employer’s control.
Whether beedi rollers working from their homes,
without strict supervision, qualified as workmen
• Diwan Mohideen Sahib v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras AIR 1966 SC 370

• Test of Employer-Employee Relationship:

The Court held that supervision and control are key factors in determining
a workman.
Even if the workers performed tasks at home, they were still dependent on the
employer for raw materials, work orders, and wages.
Whether beedi rollers working from their homes,
without strict supervision, qualified as workmen
• Piece-Rate Payment Not a Deciding Factor:

The fact that workers were paid based on the number of beedis rolled did not make them
independent contractors.
The employer’s control over the supply of materials and the final product showed an
employment relationship.
• Substance Over Form:

Even though workers were not directly supervised during beedi rolling, they had no real
autonomy in their work.
Since the employer controlled the work process and final output, the workers
were workmen under the Act
Whether canteen workers employed through
a contractor could be considered employees of the
principal employer
• Workmen of the Canteen of Coates of India Ltd v. Coates of India Ltd. (2004) 3
SCC 547
• Test of Control and Supervision:

The Supreme Court ruled that for workers to be considered employees of the
company, there must be sufficient control and supervision by the company over
their employment.
Since the canteen was operated by an independent contractor, and the
company did not control recruitment, wages, or disciplinary actions, the
workers were not direct employees of Coates of India Ltd.
Whether canteen workers employed through
a contractor could be considered employees of the
principal employer
• Distinction Between Statutory and Non-Statutory Canteens:

The Court noted that if a canteen is mandated by law (statutory

requirement), the workers may have a case for being treated as employees of the
company.
However, in this case, the canteen was not a statutory requirement, meaning
the workers could not claim direct employment under the company.
Whether canteen workers employed through
a contractor could be considered employees of the
principal employer
• Employer-Employee Relationship Not Established:

The Court held that merely because a canteen serves the employees of a
company, it does not automatically make its workers employees of the company.
Since the contractor was responsible for hiring and managing workers, the
principal employer (Coates of India Ltd.) was not liable for their employment
conditions.
Whether the workers of the Cooperative
Marketing Society were workmen
• Workmen of Nilgiri Cooperative Marketing Society v. State of Tamil Nadu (2004)
3 SCC 514
• Test of Employer-Employee Relationship:

The Supreme Court reiterated that the existence of an employer-employee

relationship must be determined based on facts and not merely assumptions.
The burden of proving such a relationship lies on the workmen claiming
employment.
Whether the workers of the Cooperative
Marketing Society were workmen
• Control and Supervision Are Key Factors:

The Court emphasized that to establish an employer-employee

relationship, control and supervision by the employer over the workers must be
proved.
If workers are hired, paid, and controlled by a contractor, they are not
employees of the principal employer.
Whether the workers of the Cooperative
Marketing Society were workmen
Burden of Proof on Workmen:
1. The workmen had failed to provide evidence proving that they were directly
employed by the society.
2. Since they could not establish an employment relationship, their claim was rejected.

Distinction Between Contract and Direct Employment:

3. If workers are engaged through a contractor, the principal employer is not
automatically responsible for their employment unless specific statutory conditions
are met.
Whether workers engaged through contractors but
working for the principal employer were workmen
• Hussainbhai v. Alath Factory Employees Union (1978) 4 SCC 257

• Economic Dependence as a Factor:

The Supreme Court ruled that if workers are economically dependent on the
principal employer and work directly for his benefit, an employer-
employee relationship exists.
Even though a contractor was involved, the real control and benefit of the work
lay with the factory owner.
Whether workers engaged through contractors but
working for the principal employer were workmen
• Control and Supervision Test:

The Court emphasized that legal subterfuge (using contractors as

intermediaries) cannot be used to deny workers their rights.
If the principal employer exercises ultimate control, the workers should be
considered workmen of the employer and not the contractor.
Whether workers engaged through contractors but
working for the principal employer were workmen
• Protection of Labor Rights:

The Court stated that the Industrial Disputes Act must be interpreted
liberally to protect workers.
The workers in this case were engaged in work essential to the factory’s
operations, making them integral to the employer’s business.
Whether an insurance company employee performing
clerical or administrative work qualifies as a workman
• SK Verma v. Mahesh Chandra 1983 (4) SCC 214

• Functional Test Over Designation:

The Supreme Court ruled that job responsibilities, not job titles, determine
workman status.
If an employee is primarily engaged in clerical or routine work, they qualify as
a workman, even if the employer designates them otherwise.
Whether an insurance company employee performing
clerical or administrative work qualifies as a workman
• Supervisory and Managerial Roles Excluded:

If an employee’s primary function is supervision, managerial decision-making, or

administrative control, they are not a workman.
However, occasional supervisory tasks do not disqualify an employee from being a
workman.
• Insurance Employees Performing Clerical Tasks Are Workmen:

The Court held that employees of insurance companies handling clerical, routine
administrative work are workmen.
Verma’s role did not involve managerial or high-level administrative work, so he fell within
the definition of a workman.
Whether a teacher falls within the definition of
a workman
• Miss A. Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa (1989) 1 LLJ 61

• Teaching Is Not a "Manual, Skilled, or Clerical Work":

The Court held that teachers are engaged in intellectual and educational
work, which is fundamentally different from manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work—the categories covered
under Section 2(s) of the Act.
Since teaching is not a mechanical or routine job, teachers do not qualify as
workmen.
Whether a teacher falls within the definition of
a workman
• Intellectual vs. Clerical Work:

The Court emphasized that education is an intellectual pursuit requiring creativity and
independent thinking, not clerical or operational labor.
Even if teachers perform some clerical tasks (like grading assignments or maintaining records), these
are incidental to their primary role and do not qualify them as workmen.
• Exclusion of Teachers from Industrial Disputes Act Protections:

Since teachers do not fall under the definition of "workman", they cannot seek remedies
under the Industrial Disputes Act for disputes like wrongful termination.
They must seek redress through education service rules or other legal frameworks.
Whether the 'medical representatives' as they
are commonly known, are workmen/worker
• HR Adhyantaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. (1994) 5 SCC 737

• Skilled and Technical Work: The Court noted that while medical
representatives possess specialized knowledge, their primary function is sales
promotion, which does not align with "skilled" or "technical" work as envisaged
under the ID Act.
• Ejusdem Generis Application: Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, the
Court interpreted that the term "skilled" should be read in context with other
types of work listed (manual, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical,
supervisory). Sales promotion activities did not fit within this context.
Evolution of a Workmen

• Worker-Centric Approach (1950s-1980s)

• Employer-Friendly Approach (1990s-Present)

• Over-Reliance on the Functional Test Without Considering Economic Reality

• Lack of Adaptability to the Modern Workforce

Assignment

• Whether IT Professionals (Engineers) are workmen/worker?

• Whether the IT Companies are industries?