A Critical Analysis of The Definition of Workman under The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Keywords:
workman; industrial disputes act; law; labour; critical analysis; judicial decisionsAbstract
This paper analyses the definition of workmen with respect to the nature of the work undertaken as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 of India. It primarily focuses on judicial decisions which have led to an evolution of what nature of work allows a person to be classified as a workman. Moreover, the paper also explores certain discrepancies which have cropped up as a result of these decisions, since the evolution in the interpretation of the definition is not based in legislation, but in these judicial decisions, and has an impact on the interpretation done by courts in the present day.
References
1. Chintaman Rao v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR (1958) SC 358
2. Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (India)
3. 1977 SCC OnLine All 473
4. (2010) 9 SCC 151
5. 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1071
6. 2004 SCC OnLine Del 199
7. ‘Employee Performing Imaginative and Creative Work Not a Workman Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947’ (Employment Law Alliance) <https://www.ela.law/firms/trilegal/articles/ employee-performing-imaginative-and-creative-work-not-a-workman-under-the-i> accessed 20 April 2020
8. (2001) 7 SCC 630
9. 1977 SCC OnLine All 473
10. Saraswathy M, ‘2016 Labour Court Ruling Could Make It Tough for IT Firms to Sack Staff at Will’ 3
11. 2012(4) Kar LJ279A
12. AIR 1991 SC 2294
13. (2005) 3 SCC 232
14. 2018 SCC OnLine All 3252
15. (2010) 9 SCC 151
16. AIR (1958) SC 358
17. Atam Prakash & Ors vs. State of Haryana & Ors 1997 (2) LLJ (P & H)
18. AIR 1959 SC 264
19. 1998 (1) LLJ 447 (Bom)
20. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India v. Burma Shell Management Staff 1971 AIR 922.
21. (1970) 3 SCC 378
22. (2011) 6 SCC 584
23. (2001) ILLJ 1095 Mad
24. (1983) ILLJ 30 Kant
25. (1994) 3 SCC 510
26. (2005) 3 SCC 232
