SHRI S.K. MAINI versus M/S. CARONA SAHU COMPANY LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 333 · Decided: 08-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, G.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' ' 
' 
SHRI S.K. MAIN! 
v. 
M/S. CARONA SAHU COMPANY LTD. AND ORS. 
MARCH 8, 1994 
[K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] 
Labour Law: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 2(s)--Workman 
A 
B 
-· 
~mployee appointed as Manager/lncharge of ShorAlso required to do 
some work of clerical nature-Held, whether or not an employee is a 
workman under s.2(s) is required to be determined with reference to his C 
principal nature of duties and functions, facts and circumstances of case and 
materials on record-Determinative factor is main duties of employee con-
cerned and not some work incidentally done-Functions of employee con-
cerned being administrative and managerial in nature, he was not a workman. 
The appellant was working as the shop Manager/Jncharge or the D 
shop or the respondent-Company. On an allegation or misconduct against 
~ 
the appellant, a domestic enquiry was conducted, as a result or which his 
services were terminated. The Government referred to the Labour Court 
the dispute whether the termination or services or the appellant was 
justified and in order. 
E 
The respondent raised a preliminary objection before the Labour 
Court that the appellant was not a workman within the definition or s.2(s) 
or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1~47 because being a shop Manager/Jn-
charge of the shop, he had been discharging mainly managerial and ad-
ministrative functions and had been supervising the works of other 
F 
employees subordinate to him for running the said shop and; even if he was 
a Supervisor at the relevant time, as he was drawing a salary more thau 
Rs.500 per month, he could not be held to be a workman under the Act. 
The Labour Court held that though the appellant was a shop G 
Manager/lncharge ol .the shop his duties were mainly clerical and he had 
no independent authority to appoint or discharge the employees and to 
charge-sheet them; bis functions could not be held to be supervisory or 
managerial. It held t'>at the appellant was a workman under the Industrial 
Disputes Act, and ·gt.we directions for his reinstatement with full back 
wages. 
333 
H 
A 
B 
334 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994] 2 S.C.R. 
The respondent-Company filed a writ petition before the High Court. 
The Single Judge held that the predominant duties of the appellant were 
administrative or managerial and to some extent supervisory in nature 
and as such he was not a workman under s.2(s) of the Act. Appellant's 
Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High 
Court. Hence the appeal by special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. Whether or not an employee is.a workman under s.2(s) 
of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, is required to be determined with 
C reference to his principal nature of duties and functions, the fa<ts and 
circumstances of the case and materials on record; and it is not possible 
to lay dowu any strait-jacket formula which can decide the dispute as to 
the real nature of duties and functions being performed by an employee iu 
all cases. (343-E-G] 
D 
E 
1.2. The designation of an.employee is not of much importance and 
what is important is the nature of duties being performed by the employee. 
The determinative factor is the main duties of the employee concerned and 
not some works incidentally done. In other words, what is, in substance, 
the work which employee does or what in substance he is employed to do. 
(344-C·D) 
l.3. If the employee is mainly doing supervisory work but incidentally 
or for a fraction of time also does some manual or clerical work, the 
employee should be held to be doing supervisory work. Conversely, if the 
main work is of manual, clerical or of technical nature, the me1-e fact that 
F 
some supervisory or other work is also done by the employee incidentally 
or only a small fraction of working time is devoted to some super super-
visory work, the employee will come with in the purview of workman as 
defined s.2(s) of the Act. A manager or an Administrative Officer is 
generally invested with the power of supervision in contradistinction to the 
G Stereo type work of a clerk. (344-D-E, 346-D) 
1.4. In view of the amendment of Section 2(s) enlarging the ambit of 
I 
I 
' ' 
' > 
the classification of various types of workmen except managerial force, 
entire labour force has been included within the definition of workman 
·•-.\ 
under section 2(s). In an earlier decision of this court in S.K. Verma's case. 
H But if the principal function
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.