S. K. VERMA versus MAHESH CHANDRA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 799 · Decided: 02-09-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

799 
• 
S. K. VERMA 
v. 
MAHESH CHANDRA AND ANOTHER 
September 2, 1983 
[D. A. DESAI, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND A. VARADARAIAN;JJ.) 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S. 2(a}-Defini!ion of'workman'- Whe(her 
it includes Development Officers in Life Insurance" Corppration_? 
On a reference being made to it concerning the dismissal from service of 
the appellant who was a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation, 
the Industrial Tribunal upheld a prelimiilary objection to the maintainability 
of the reference and ruled that Development Officers in the Corporation were 
not workmen within the meaning of s. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .. 
His petition under Art. 226 questioning the validity -Of the Tribunal's rulini 
having been dismissed in lbnine by the· High Court, the appellant approached 
this Court under Art. 136. 
· 
Allowing the appeal, 
• 
HELr.:1: Development Officers in the Life Insurance Corporation are 
workmen' within the meaning of s. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
[821 BJ 
(i) The Act is a legislation intended to bring about peace and harmony 
between labour and management in industry and, for that purpose, it makes 
provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. It is 
therefore, necessary· to interpret the definitions of 'industry', •workman•: 
'industrial disputes', etc., so as not to whittle down, but to advance the object 
of the Act. Disputes b~tween forces of labour and management are not to be 
excluded from the operarion of the Act by giving narrow and restricted mean· 
ings to expressions in the Act. Parliament could never be credited with the 
intention of keeping out of. the purview of the legislation small bands of 
employees who, though not on the managerial side of the establishment, are· 
yet to be denied the Ordinary rights of the forces of labour for no apparent 
reason at all. [803 D1FJ 
Workmen of Indian Standards Institution 
v. Managen1ent of Indian 
Standards Institution, [1976) 2 S.C.R. 138, referred to. 
(ii) The words "any skilled pr unskilled manual, supervisory, technical 
or clerical work" ins. 2(s) of the Act are not intended to limit or narrow the. 
ainplitude of the definition of 'wprkman'; on the other hand they indicate and 
emphasize the broad sweep of the definition Which is designed to cover all 
manner of persons employed in an industry, irrespective of whether they are 
A 
B 
c 
I 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
800 
SUPRI ME COURT REPORTS 
(1983] 3 S.C.R. 
engaged in.skilled work or unskiHed work, rllanual work or supervisory work,' 
A 
technical work or clerical work. Quite obviously, ·the broad intention is to take 
in the entire 'labour force' and exclude the 'managerial force'. [80J B~CJ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(iii) One does not have to be carried away by the appellation 'develop-
ment officer' but must look to the nature or his duties to dircover what precisely 
a development officer is. It is seen from the Life Insurance Corporation of 
India (Staff) Regulations that development officers, while classified separately 
from 'Supervisory· and Clerical 
Staff• are also classified separately from 
"officers' and from the scales of pay prescribed as well as the authorities compe~ 
tent to appoint and take disciplinary action in respect of various categories of 
officers and staff mentioned therein it is clear that the appellation 'devlopment 
officer'-is no more than a· glorified designation. De-velopment Officers are 
separated from 'officers' strictly so called and are generally placed on a par 
with subordinate and clerical staff. The nature of the duties of a developn1ent 
officer gathered from the letter of appointment issued to the appellant indicate 
that he is to be a whole time employee of the Corporation, that his operations 
are to be restricted to a defined area, that he is liable to be transferred, that he 
has no authority to bind the Corporation in any way, that hiS principal duty is 
to organise and develop the business of the Corporation in an area allotted to 
him and for that purpose to recruit active and reliable agents and to train 
them and that even so, he has not the authority either to appoint them or to 
take disciplinary actiOn against them. Further, it was admitted that a develop~ 
meat officer has no subordinate staff working under him. It is thus clear that 
a development officer cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be 
engaged in any administrative or managerial work. [804 D-H; 805 A-E

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.