Vijaykanth and Amar Jha were in the employment as driver in a university. The university later found that operating the bus services for the students has resulted in loss and decided to discontinue the facility. This has

CS Professional · Labour Laws & Practice · PYQS · June 2025
Vijaykanth and Amar Jha were in the employment as driver in a university. The university later found that operating the bus services for the students has resulted in loss and decided to discontinue the facility. This has resulted in the termination of services of the drivers by way of retrenchment. These two drivers were served with a notice of retrenchment on payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice. The aggrieved drivers filed petitions before the Industrial Tribunal for claiming compensation. The petitions by the respective drivers were contested by the Appellants - the University on the ground that the university was not the employer under section 2(g) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and secondly on the ground that the work carried on by the university was not industry and so the petitions are liable to be rejected. The tribunal rejected the objections and directed the appellants (University) to pay the petitioners the retrenchment compensation. In the light of the above mentioned facts, decide the following questions: (ii) The staff both teaching and administrative, whether they are workmen? Explain.

Answer & Explanation:

Answer 5(b)(ii) Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines the term 'workman' which 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 who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity. However, in the case of University of Delhi Vs Ramnath, it was held teachers are not workmen, but the support staff administrative staff are workmen. It is even so as per the substituted definitions of industry in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A Rajiappa. The activities of the university involves academics, administrative work and other ancillary and incidental work. In Standard Vacuum Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Labour, it was observed that if an individual has officers subordinate to him whose work he is required to oversee, if he has to take decision and also he is responsible for ensuring that the matters entrusted to his charge are efficiently conducted, and an ascertainable area or section of work is assigned to him, an inference of a position of management would be justifiable. Occasional entrustment of supervisory, managerial or administrative work, will not take a person mainly discharging clerical duties, out of purview of Section 2(s).

Topics: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic