Hi members, Can a person designed as Manager (drawing more than Rs.18,000/-) seek relief through representation to Labour Commissioner? Is he qualified to be a 'workman' for grievance redressal through Labour Commissioner Offer? Thanks in anticipation.
From India, Chennai
From India, Chennai
Dear friend,
There is no mention in your post about the nature of the individual's employment grievance. Generally mere nomenclature of designation of a job or the amount of salary is not a decisive factor determining whether the person employed on it is a 'workman' , 'supervisor' or 'manager'. On the other hand, it is the principal and predominant nature of duties actually performed by him as per the orders of the employer.
The question whether a person employed is a workman or not is also an industrial dispute which can be resolved only by adjudication. Therefore, if the grievance is discharge, retrenchment or dismissal, such a person can approach the conciliation officer first u/s 2-A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in case of failure, he can approach the Labor Court u/s 2-A(2) of the Act.
From India, Salem
5967There is no mention in your post about the nature of the individual's employment grievance. Generally mere nomenclature of designation of a job or the amount of salary is not a decisive factor determining whether the person employed on it is a 'workman' , 'supervisor' or 'manager'. On the other hand, it is the principal and predominant nature of duties actually performed by him as per the orders of the employer.
The question whether a person employed is a workman or not is also an industrial dispute which can be resolved only by adjudication. Therefore, if the grievance is discharge, retrenchment or dismissal, such a person can approach the conciliation officer first u/s 2-A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in case of failure, he can approach the Labor Court u/s 2-A(2) of the Act.
From India, Salem
Dear Colleague,
Kindly have a perusal of the definition of "Workman" under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947:
2[(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice)employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been
dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any
such person-
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.]
In general " Person employed mainly in Managerial Capacity are excluded from the definition of " Workman" But he should be Manager in Letter and Sprit. Only designating some one as Manager but engaging him in non-managerial activities mainly will make him as Workman and in such case he will be proving that the name " Manager" was only in paper but really he worked in Clerical or other Technical Jobs mainly.
In short if the person is Manager in letter and sprit and really he as working as " Manager" then he many not seek relief under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as he will not be deemed to be Workman. But he is open to seek Civil relief through Court. Hence take call suitably based on real practice and real factual engagement of the employee as Manager or otherwise
All the Best, God Bless,
Dr.P.SIVAKUMAR
Doctor Siva Global HR
Tamil Nadu
From India, Chennai
Kindly have a perusal of the definition of "Workman" under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947:
2[(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice)employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been
dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any
such person-
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.]
In general " Person employed mainly in Managerial Capacity are excluded from the definition of " Workman" But he should be Manager in Letter and Sprit. Only designating some one as Manager but engaging him in non-managerial activities mainly will make him as Workman and in such case he will be proving that the name " Manager" was only in paper but really he worked in Clerical or other Technical Jobs mainly.
In short if the person is Manager in letter and sprit and really he as working as " Manager" then he many not seek relief under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as he will not be deemed to be Workman. But he is open to seek Civil relief through Court. Hence take call suitably based on real practice and real factual engagement of the employee as Manager or otherwise
All the Best, God Bless,
Dr.P.SIVAKUMAR
Doctor Siva Global HR
Tamil Nadu
From India, Chennai
Thank you both Mr Umakanthan and Dr. Sivakumar. Yes he was playing the role of manager and not doing any clerical work. Further, to answer Mr Umakathan, the grievance is about dismissal, against which he has approached the Labour Commissioner.
From India, Chennai
From India, Chennai
Dear Colleague,
In such given fact, the Manager can not seek remedy under the Provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. You can defend your case suitably. However Civil Suit may be raised by the Manager which kindly take a note.
All the Best, God Bless,
Dr P.SIVAKUMAR
Doctor Siva Global HR
Tamil Nadu
From India, Chennai
In such given fact, the Manager can not seek remedy under the Provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947. You can defend your case suitably. However Civil Suit may be raised by the Manager which kindly take a note.
All the Best, God Bless,
Dr P.SIVAKUMAR
Doctor Siva Global HR
Tamil Nadu
From India, Chennai
Dear colleague,
The issue of someone is a workman or non- workman is to be decided , when contested, by the adjudicating authority on merits, under the Industrial Disputes Act/ Rules.
Therefore, to opine that the said so-called Manager can not knock the doors of the authorities under the said Act, is premature.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR and Employee Relations Consultant
From India, Mumbai
The issue of someone is a workman or non- workman is to be decided , when contested, by the adjudicating authority on merits, under the Industrial Disputes Act/ Rules.
Therefore, to opine that the said so-called Manager can not knock the doors of the authorities under the said Act, is premature.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR and Employee Relations Consultant
From India, Mumbai
The detailed information is provided by all is appreciated. At the same time I have a question to be clarified. The Stores in charge employed and paid under administrative category comes under athe category of workman or not?
From India, Mangalore
From India, Mangalore
The payment does not decide rather the job responsibility and nature of work performed in an establishment decide whether the person is workman or supervisor or Manager.
A peon draws more than Rs.18,000/- ! Can we consider him as a manager ?
The Labour Commissioner would decide whether representation made is acceptable or likely to be rejected. The authority would definitely look into the fact, if the person could prove him as 'workman' but not a Manager just wearing an ornamental designation 'Manager'.
From India, Mumbai
A peon draws more than Rs.18,000/- ! Can we consider him as a manager ?
The Labour Commissioner would decide whether representation made is acceptable or likely to be rejected. The authority would definitely look into the fact, if the person could prove him as 'workman' but not a Manager just wearing an ornamental designation 'Manager'.
From India, Mumbai
it is true that an attender may have more salary than this manager is getting. But what is relevant is his functional rights and not the salary. If this man is having the authority to approve leaves of his subordinates, initiate disciplinary action against the subordinates or appraise the performance of his subordinates, he should be called a manager. A manager by designation but does not have the above rights shall only be regarded as a workman. It is there is some of the verdicts by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I failed to get the citation.
From India, Kannur
From India, Kannur
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
H.R.Manager - Job Chart.doc
152120-very-use ful-hr-manageme nt-software-bui lt-excel-psa-hr -manager-mainta in-payrrol-exce l-soft.zip
Signs of a Good Manager.ppt