Actual Work Performed, Not Designations, Determines Workman Status: Bombay High Court
In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court, led by Justice Amit Borkar, upheld the Industrial Tribunal’s decision, affirming the classification of certain employees as ‘workmen’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in the case involving Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd.’s Interio Division.
Brief on the Legal Point:
The crux of the legal debate revolved around the interpretation of ‘workmen’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court examined whether the nature of work performed by the employees was consistent with the statutory definition of a ‘workman.’
Facts and Issues:
Following a dispute over wages and benefits, the matter escalated to the Industrial Tribunal, which classified certain employees as ‘workmen’, contrary to Godrej’s claim of them holding managerial or supervisory roles.
Detailed Court Assessment:
Emphasis on Actual Work: The High Court stressed that the employee’s actual work, rather than their job titles, was crucial in determining their status as workmen.
Analysis of Employee Functions: The judgment relied on detailed evidence about the employees’ roles, demonstrating their engagement in manual, skilled, and unskilled tasks, with little evidence of supervisory duties.
Upholding Tribunal’s Rationale: The court concluded that the Industrial Tribunal’s decision was well-grounded in evidence and legal precedent, warranting no interference.
Decision: The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, endorsing the Tribunal’s classification of the employees as workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Date of Decision: March 28, 2024.
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. Interio Division v. Shivkranti Kamgar Sanghatana,
