Case Study: Determining Who Qualifies as a “Workman” Under the ID Act

Case

Campari Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Industrial-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon & Anr.
CWP No. 20464/2018 (O&M)

Court and Date

Punjab and Haryana High Court
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi
Decision: 14 July 2025

Relevant Law

• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
  • Section 2(s): Definition of “Workman”
  • Section 25B: Continuous service of 240 days

Background

Phool Chand Mishra, employed as a Production Manager at Campari Exports Pvt. Ltd., earning ₹70,000 per month, alleged that his services were illegally terminated on 15 May 2016.

He raised an industrial dispute, and the Labour Court ordered reinstatement, holding that his termination violated the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Campari Exports challenged the award before the High Court, contending that:

1. The respondent was not a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, being a managerial/supervisory employee.
2. The Labour Court failed to record findings on whether he qualified as a “workman.”
3. Even though the management was proceeded ex parte, the Labour Court was still obligated to verify statutory eligibility.

Legal Issue

Whether a Production Manager earning ₹70,000 per month, allegedly performing supervisory functions, qualifies as a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — and whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to grant relief without such a finding.

Key Legal Findings

1. Duty of the Labour Court:
   The Court emphasized that before granting relief, the Labour Court must confirm whether the claimant falls within the definition of “workman”.
2. Definition and Scope:
   Under Section 2(s), persons employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacities or in supervisory positions earning more than ₹10,000/month are excluded from the definition of “workman.”
3. Role and Salary Consideration:
   A Production Manager drawing ₹70,000 per month and working on a supervisory post cannot be presumed to be a workman unless proven otherwise.
4. Lack of Evidence:
   No material was presented to establish that the respondent did not perform supervisory functions. Hence, jurisdiction under the ID Act could not be invoked.
5. Continuous Service Not Enough:
   Merely showing completion of 240 days of service does not establish rights under the ID Act unless the person qualifies as a workman.
6. Ex Parte Proceedings:
   Even if the management is absent, the Labour Court cannot automatically grant relief without proper findings and evidence under the Act.

Judgment

• The High Court set aside the Labour Court’s award dated 25 April 2018, citing failure to determine whether the respondent was a “workman.”
• The matter was remanded to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication to decide:
  1. Whether the respondent qualifies as a “workman.”
  2. Whether termination violated provisions of the ID Act.
• Parties were directed to appear before the Labour Court on 18 August 2025.

Conclusion

The High Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act depends on the claimant’s status as a “workman.” Merely being employed or completing 240 days of service does not automatically grant protection under the Act.

The Labour Court must analyze job duties, salary, and authority to decide if the employee truly falls under Section 2(s).

Key Learning

• Not every employee is a “workman.” Managerial and supervisory employees with high remuneration fall outside the ID Act’s scope.
• Labour Courts must record findings on the employee’s classification before granting relief.
• Ex parte proceedings do not excuse the court from fulfilling statutory requirements.
• Completion of 240 days is relevant only after confirming “workman” status.
• Proper classification of employees ensures fair application of labour protections and avoids misuse of the ID Act.

Download the PDF copy of this Case:

Join the community that’s changing the way businesses handle compliance in India.