Can a high-ranking manager without the authority to hire, fire, or conduct disciplinary actions still be considered a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines a "workman" as any person employed to do manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work. It excludes individuals:

• Subject to military or paramilitary laws.
• Employed in police service or as prison officers.
• Engaged primarily in managerial or administrative roles.
• In a supervisory capacity earning above ₹10,000/month or performing managerial duties.

Key Considerations:

• Nature of Duties vs. Designation: Actual duties, not just job titles, determine if someone is a "workman."
• Managerial vs. Supervisory Role: Those in strategic, decision-making roles are generally not considered "workmen."

Judicial Interpretation: M/S Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. A.S. Raghavendra | Supreme Court of India | [2024] 4 S.C.R. 100 | Civil Appeal No. 5187 of 2023. The Supreme Court ruled that A.S. Raghavendra, despite lacking hire/fire authority, was not a "workman" because his role as a Regional Business Head was primarily managerial and supervisory. The judgment emphasized that the absence of hire/fire powers alone does not determine "workman" status.

Conclusion:
​A high-ranking manager without hire/fire powers is not a "workman" if their role is primarily managerial or supervisory. The focus is on the actual nature of duties performed.

---

Shekar Ganagaluru's Books

---

---

K. VITTALA RAO's HR Books