Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company
- 2022-02-17
Citation: 1978 AIR 1410
Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R. Desai, D.A. Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)
FACTS:
This case pertains to the definition of a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The case had come up before the Labour Court and it had observed that even though the appellant was employed in performing some clerical work, some supervisory duties along with administrative duties were assigned and therefore, he would not come under the definition of workman. The Labour Court decided that he was an officer of the Covenanted Contractual Staff Cadre and rejected the reference.
An appeal was brought before the High Court and dismissed. So, the matter was brought by special leave to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
Whether the assignment of supervisory duties would exempt an employee from the definition of a workman.
JUDGMENT:
The Supreme Court examined that facts and stated that after rightly holding that the primary duties of the workman were of a clerical nature, the labour court had erred in finding that the appellant was not a workman.
The Supreme Court opined that when the primary duties are that of a workman and some stray assignments are made to add confusion, the layers have to be removed in order to uncover the reality. It held that the appellant was undoubtedly a workman within the meaning of the expression under the act.
If the duties were primarily of a supervisory nature, however, the Court held that the employee would be exempt from the definition of a workman.
