BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE & DISTRIBUTION CO. OF INDIA versus BURMAH SHELL MANAGEMENT STAFF ASSOCIATION & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 758 · Decided: 12-11-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

758 
'' 
BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE & DISTRIBUTION CO. 
OF INDIA 
v. 
BURM.All SHELL MANAGEMENT STAFF ASSOCIATION 
& ORS. 
November 12, 1970 
[S. M. SIKRI, V. BHARGAVA AND 1. D. DuA, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes. Act, 1941-Section 
:(s)-'Workman', tests for determining who is. 
The members of the Burmah Shell Management Staff Association, 
designated as junior management staff, raised an industrial dispute. The 
Govermitent referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. The refer-
ence was confined to the members of the junior Management staff working 
in the Maharashtra region. 
At the time of referern:e the lowest Sllsic 
salary drawn by a member of the Association was Rs. 535/-. On behalf 
of the company a preliminary objection was 'raised that none of the mem-
bers of the association was a workman. The Tribunal gave art interim 
award. The members of the aS>ociation were classified into various cate-
gories. Out of these, members of six categories were held to be workmen, 
namely (I) Transport ;Engineer (2) District Engineers (3) Foreman 
(Chemicals) (4) Fueling Superintendents (5) Chemists and (6) Sales 
Engineering Representatives. 
Members belonging to four. categories were 
helrl not to be workmen, .namely, (I) Llending Supervisors (2) Foremen 
( 3) Depot Superintendents and ( 4) District Sales Representatives. The 
Company challenged the decision of the Tribunal in respect of the six 
categories held to be workmen and the Association challenged the decision 
in respect of the four. categories held not to be workmen. The Associa-
tion contended that whenever a technical man was employed in an in-
dustry it had to be held he was employed to do technical work irl'espective 
of the .manner in which and the occasions on which the technical lmow-
ledge of that person was actually brought into use and to_ hold otherwise 
would result in making the word 'technical' redundant in lhe definition 
of 'workman' in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as 
amended. by Act 36 of 1956 . 
. HELD : Of the members of six categories held to be workmen (I) 
Transport Engineer (2) District Engineer (3) Foreman (cbemicals) and 
( 4) Sales Engineering Representative must be held not to be workmen; 
and of the members of four categories held not to be workmen, the t.Tjbunal 
elTQd with resjrect to Blending Supervisors working in the Wadilube plant. 
A workman must be held to be employed to do that work which is the 
main work he is required to do, even though he may be incidentally doing 
other types of work. Therefore, in determining w.hich of the employees 
in the various categories are covered by the definition of 'workman' one 
has to see what is the main ·or substantial work which they are employed 
to do. [766 CJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
May & Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Wprkmen, [1961] II L.L.J. 94, 
H 
South Jndi'ln Bank Ltd. v. A.R. Chacko. (1964] 5 S.C.R. 625, Ananda 
Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1969] ·II .L.L.J. 670, Re. Dairy-
men's Foremen & Re. Tailors' Cutters, (1911-12) 28 T.L.R. 587, Reid v. 
BURMAH SHELL CO. V. STAFF ASSOCIATION 
759 
A 
British and Irish Steam Packet Co. Ltd., [1921] 2 K.B.D. 219, Jaques v. 
Owners of Steam Tug Alexendrt1, [1921) 2 A.C. 339, J. & F. Stone Light" 
ing & Rildio Ltd, v. Haygarth, [1968) A.C. Pt. 3, 157, refer'red to. 
(i) The major part of the work done by a Transport Engineer is that 
of supervision of the work of repair, maintenance, sefvicing_ and fabrica-
tion which is actually carried on by machanics, fitters and other 'skilled 
or unskilled workmen working under him. Even if the Transport .Engi-
B 
neer uses his technical knowledge it is used primarily for the purpose ot 
supervising the work done by the skilled manual labourers. If a person 
is merely employed in supervising the work of others the fact that for 
the purpose of proper supervision he is required to' have technical kn,1w-
lcdge will not convert his supervisory work into technical work; the work 
of giving advice and guidance cannot be held to be an employment to do 
technical work. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
(ii) The principal work for which a District Engineer is employed 
is to supervise work done by others instead of doing the work himself. 
ll;is dulles consist of assessing suitability of sites for depots from the 
point of view .of technical and en$ineering aspects, suggestmg lay-out for 
constructing depots or service stations, seeing that the estimates prepared 
by the draughtsman arc correct from t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.