Question

In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court expounded the law on criterion used for determining whether an employee is a workman under Industrial Disputes Act 1947, and held that employee in managerial position is not workman?

• A. M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited v. A. S. Raghavendra (2024)
• B. Syndicate Bank and Ors. v. K. Umesh Nayak (1994)
• C. Ushaben Joshi v. Union of India & Ors. (2024)
• D. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978)

Hint:

The test to identify a "workman" is not based on their designation, but on the dominant nature of their work. The Bharti Airtel case (2024) reaffirmed that managerial employees are not workmen.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

This question refers to a recent and significant judgment on the definition of a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
In the 2024 case of M/s.
Bharti Airtel Limited v.
A.
S.
Raghavendra, the Supreme Court clarified the test to be used.
The court emphasized the "dominant nature of the work" test.
It held that to determine if an employee is a workman, one must look at the primary nature of their duties.
If the main duties are managerial or supervisory, the employee is not a workman, even if they perform some incidental clerical or manual tasks.
The court held that an employee in a managerial position does not fall under the definition of a workman.