Heavy Engineering Corporation v. Presiding Officer (1996)
Who counts as a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Quick Summary
The Supreme Court decided that a General Duty Medical Officer, who runs a first-aid post during his shift and directs nurses and drivers, works in a supervisory role.
Because supervisory staff are outside Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he is not a “workman.” So, Section 25-F protections did not apply, and the termination stood.
Issues
- Can a General Duty Medical Officer Grade II be treated as a “workman” under Section 2(s) ID Act?
- Was the management right in ending his ad-hoc appointment?
Rules
Section 2(s) (Industrial Disputes Act, 1947): a person is not a “workman” if they are employed mainly in a supervisory capacity.
Section 25-F (retrenchment conditions) applies only to a “workman.”
Facts (Timeline)
Arguments
Appellant: Heavy Engineering Corporation
- Doctor led the first-aid post during his shift; others took directions from him.
- Thus, he acted in a supervisory capacity and falls outside Section 2(s).
- Ad-hoc term simply ended; no retrenchment benefits due.
Respondent: Doctor
- Worked more than 240 days; Section 25-F should protect him.
- Role was primarily medical, not managerial or supervisory.
- Termination without cause; reinstatement with back wages sought.
Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court and Labour Court orders.
It held the doctor was supervisory, not a “workman” under Section 2(s). Because Section 25-F applies only to a “workman,” the termination on completion of the ad-hoc term was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
If, during duty, a person controls and directs other staff in the post, their role is supervisory. Such a person is excluded from the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) ID Act.
Why It Matters
- Clarifies the boundary between professional and supervisory roles in hospitals and industrial first-aid setups.
- Shows that the nature of duties, not the job title, decides “workman” status.
- Guides employers and employees on when labour protections apply.
Key Takeaways
- “Workman” test is duty-based; supervision excludes you from Section 2(s).
- 240+ days work does not help if you are not a “workman.”
- Running a post alone + giving directions = supervisory function.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “DOC SUP” — Doctor Supervises → Not Workman.
- Duty: Who gives directions?
- Outcomes: Are others following them?
- Conclusion: If yes → Supervisory → Section 2(s) exclusion.
IRAC Outline
| Issue | Rule | Application | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the GDMO a “workman”? | Section 2(s) excludes supervisory roles. | Doctor ran the first-aid post; others took directions from him. | He is supervisory → not a “workman.” |
| Was termination valid? | Section 25-F applies only to “workman.” | Ad-hoc term ended; exclusion applies. | Termination upheld. |
Glossary
- Workman (ID Act)
- Employee covered by Section 2(s); excludes supervisory staff.
- Supervisory Capacity
- Role involves directing or controlling other workers’ tasks.
- Section 25-F
- Retrenchment safeguards; available only to a “workman.”
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now