MODULE 1

TOPIC 03: WORKS COMMITTEE

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

3. Works Committee.—(1) In the case of any industrial establishment in which one hundred or more
workmen are employed or have been employed on any day in the preceding twelve months, the appropriate
Government may by general or special order require the employer to constitute in the prescribed manner a
Works Committee consisting of representatives of employers and workmen engaged in the establishment so
however that the number of representatives of workmen on the Committee shall not be less than the number
of representatives of the employer. The representatives of the workmen shall be chosen in the prescribed
manner from among the workmen engaged in the establishment and in consultation with their trade union, if
any, registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 (16 of 1926).
(2) It shall be the duty of the Works Committee to promote measures for securing and preserving amity and
good relations between the employer and workmen and, to that end, to comment upon matters of their common
interest or concern and endeavour to compose any material difference of opinion in respect of such matters.

4. Conciliation officers.—(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
appoint such number of persons as it thinks fit, to be conciliation officers, charged with the duty of mediating
in and promoting the settlement of industrial disputes.
(2) A conciliation officer may be appointed for a specified area or for specified industries in a specified area
or for one or more specified industries and either permanently or for a limited period.

5. Board of Conciliation.—(1) The appropriate Government may as occasion arises by notification in the
Official Gazette constitute a Board of Conciliation for promoting the settlement of an industrial dispute.
(2) A Board shall consist of a chairman and two or four other members, as the appropriate Government thinks
fit. (3) The chairman shall be an independent person and the other members shall be persons appointed in
equal numbers to represent the parties to the dispute and any person appointed to represent a party shall be
appointed on the recommendation of that party:
Provided that, if any party fails to make a recommendation as aforesaid within the prescribed time, the
appropriate Government shall appoint such persons as it thinks fit to represent that party.
(4) A Board, having the prescribed quorum, may act notwithstanding the absence of the chairman or any of its
members or any vacancy in its number:
Provided that if the appropriate Government notifies the Board that the services of the chairman or of any
other member have ceased to be available, the Board shall not act until a new chairman or member, as the case
may be, has been appointed.

12. Duties of conciliation officers.—(1) Where any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the
conciliation officer may, or where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under section 22
has been given, shall hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner.
(2) The conciliation officer shall, for the purpose of bringing about a settlement of the dispute, without delay,
investigate the dispute and all matters affecting the merits and the right settlement thereof and may do all such
things as he thinks fit for the purpose of inducing the parties to come to a fair and amicable settlement of the
dispute.
(3) If a settlement of the dispute or of any of the matters in dispute is arrived at in the course of the conciliation
proceedings the conciliation officer shall send a report thereof to the appropriate Government [or an officer
authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government] together with a memorandum of the settlement
signed by the parties to the dispute.
(4) If no such settlement is arrived at, the conciliation officer shall, as soon as practicable after the close of the
investigation, send to the appropriate Government a full report setting forth the steps taken by him for
ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof,
together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances, and the reasons on account of which, in his
opinion, a settlement could not be arrived at.
(5) If, on a consideration of the report referred to in sub-section (4), the appropriate Government is satisfied
that there is a case for reference to a Board, [Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], it may make such
reference. Where the appropriate Government does not make such a reference it shall record and communicate
to the parties concerned its reasons therefor.
(6) A report under this section shall be submitted within fourteen days of the commencement of the conciliation
proceedings or within such shorter period as may be fixed by the appropriate Government:
[Provided that, [subject to the approval of the conciliation officer,] the time for the submission of the report
may be extended by such period as may be agreed upon in writing by all the parties to the dispute.]

6. Courts of Inquiry.—(1) The appropriate Government may as occasion arises by notification in the Official
Gazette constitute a Court of Inquiry for inquiring into any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant
to an industrial dispute.
(2) A Court may consist of one independent person or of such number of independent persons as the
appropriate Government may think fit and where a Court consists of two or more members, one of them shall
be appointed as the chairman.
(3) A Court, having the prescribed quorum, may act notwithstanding the absence of the chairman or any of its
members or any vacancy in its number:
Provided that, if the appropriate Government notifies the Court that the services of the chairman have ceased
to be available, the Court shall not act until a new chairman has been appointed.

9C. Setting up of Grievance Redressal Machinery.—(1) Every industrial establishment employing twenty
or more workmen shall have one or more Grievance Redressal Committee for the resolution of disputes arising
out of individual grievances.
(2) The Grievance Redressal Committee shall consist of equal number of members from the employer and the
workmen.
(3) The chairperson of the Grievance Redressal Committee shall be selected from the employer and from
among the workmen alternatively on rotation basis every year.
(4) The total number of members of the Grievance Redressal Committee shall not exceed more than six:
Provided that there shall be, as far as practicable, one woman member if the Grievance Redressal Committee
has two members and in case the number of members are more than two, the number of women members may
be increased proportionately.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the setting up of Grievance Redressal Committee shall
not affect the right of the workman to raise industrial dispute on the same matter under the provisions of this
Act.
(6) The Grievance Redressal Committee may complete its proceedings within thirty days on receipt of a
written application by or on behalf of the aggrieved party.
(7) The workman who is aggrieved of the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee may prefer an
appeal to the employer against the decision of Grievance Redressal Committee and the employer shall, within
one month from the date of receipt of such appeal, dispose off the same and send a copy of his decision to the
workman concerned.
(8) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to the workmen for whom there is an established Grievance
Redressal Mechanism in the establishment.

TOPIC 04: ADJUDICATION OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

7. Labour Courts.—(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute
one or more Labour Courts for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the
Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act.
(2) A Labour Court shall consist of one person only to be appointed by the appropriate Government.
(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the presiding officer of a Labour Court, unless— 2 [(a)
he is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court; or (b) he has, for a period of not less than three years, been a
District Judge or an Additional District Judge; or 3* * * * * 4 [(d)] he has held any judicial office in India for
not less than seven years; or 4 [(e)] he has been the presiding officer of a Labour Court constituted under any
Provincial Act or State Act for not less than five years. 5 [(f) he is or has been a Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) or Joint Commissioner of the State Labour Department, having a degree in law and
at least seven years' experience in the labour department including three years of experience as Conciliation
Officer: Provided that no such Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner or Joint Labour Commissioner shall be
appointed unless he resigns from the service ofthe Central Government or State Government, as the case may
be, before being appointed as the presiding officer; or (g) he is an officer of Indian Legal Service in Grade Ili
with three years' experience in the grade.]

7A. Tribunals.—(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one
or more Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter, whether specified
in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule 1 [and for performing such other functions as may be assigned
to them under this Act]. 2 [(1A) The Industrial Tribunal constituted by the Central Government under sub-
section (1) shall also exercise, on and from the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act,
2017, the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on the Tribunal referred to in section 7D of the
Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952).] (2) A Tribunal shall
consist of one person only to be appointed by the appropriate Government. (3) A person shall not be qualified
for appointment as the presiding officer of a Tribunal unless— (a) he is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court;
or 3 [(aa) he has, for a period of not less than three years, been a District Judge or an Additional District Judge;
4***] 5 [(b) he is or has been a Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) or Joint Commissioner of the
State Labour Department,, having a degree in law and at least seven years' experience in the labour department
including three years of experience as Conciliation Officer: Provided that no such Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner or Joint Labour Commissioner shall be appointed unless he resigns from the service of the
Central Government or State Government, as the case may be, before being appointed as the presiding officer;
or (c) he is an officer of Indian Legal Service in Grade III with three years' experience in the grade.] 6* * * *
* (4) The appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, appoint two persons as assessors to advise the
Tribunal in the proceeding before it.

7B. National Tribunals.—(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute
one or more National Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of industrial disputes which, in the opinion of
the Central Government, involve questions of national importance or are of such a nature that industrial
establishments situated in more than one State are likely to be interested in, or affected by, such disputes. (2)
A National Tribunal shall consist of one person only to be appointed by the Central Government. (3) A person
shall not be qualified for appointment as the presiding officer of a National Tribunal 1 [unless he is, or has
been, a Judge of a High Court]. (4) The Central Government may, if it so thinks fit, appoint two persons as
assessors to advise the National Tribunal in the proceeding before it.

10A. Voluntary reference of disputes to arbitration.—(1) Where any industrial dispute exists or is
apprehended and the employer and the workmen agree to refer the dispute to arbitration, they may, at any time
before the dispute has been referred under section 10 to a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal, by
a written agreement, refer the dispute to arbitration and the reference shall be to such person or persons
(including the presiding officer of a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal) as an arbitrator or
arbitrators as may be specified in the arbitration agreement. [(1A) Where an arbitration agreement provides
for a reference of the dispute to an even number of arbitrators, the agreement shall provide for the appointment
of another person as umpire who shall enter upon the reference, if the arbitrators are equally divided in their
opinion, and the award of the umpire shall prevail and shall be deemed to be the arbitration award for the
purposes of this Act.]
(2) An arbitration agreement referred to in sub-section (1) shall be in such form and shall be signed by the
parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) A copy of the arbitration agreement shall be forwarded to the appropriate Government and the conciliation
officer and the appropriate Government shall, within 3 [one month] from the date of the receipt of such copy,
publish the same in the Official Gazette. 2 [(3A) Where an industrial dispute has been referred to arbitration
and the appropriate Government is satisfied that the persons making the reference represent the majority of
each party, the appropriate Government may, within the time referred to in sub-section (3), issue a notification
in such manner as may be prescribed; and when any such notification is issued, the employers and workmen
who are not parties to the arbitration agreement but are concerned in the dispute, shall be given an opportunity
of presenting their case before the arbitrator or arbitrators.]
(4) The arbitrator or arbitrators shall investigate the dispute and submit to the appropriate Government the
arbitration award signed by the arbitrator or all the arbitrators, as the case may be. 2 [(4A) Where an industrial
dispute has been referred to arbitration and a notification has been issued under sub-section (3A), the
appropriate Government may, by order, prohibit the continuance of any strike or lock-out in connection with
such dispute which may be in existence on the date of the reference.] (5) Nothing in the Arbitration Act, 1940
(10 of 1940), shall apply to arbitration under this section.]

10.Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.—(1) 1 [Where the appropriate Government is of

opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time], by order in writing,— (a)
refer the dispute to a Board for promoting a settlement thereof; or (b) refer any matter appearing to be
connected with or relevant to the dispute to a Court for inquiry; or 2 [(c) refer the dispute or any matter
appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, if it relates to any matter specified in the Second
Schedule, to a Labour Court for adjudication; or (d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected
with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third
Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication: Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the
Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may,
if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under clause (c):] 3 [Provided further that] where the
dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under section 22 has been given, the appropriate
Government shall, unless it considers that the notice has been frivolously or vexatiously given or that it would
be inexpedient so to do, make a reference under this sub-section notwithstanding that any other proceedings
under this Act in respect of the dispute may have commenced: 4 [Provided also that where the dispute in
relation to which the Central Government is the appropriate Government, it shall be competent for that
Government to refer the dispute to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, constituted
by the State Government.] 5 [(1A) Where the Central Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute
exists or is apprehended and the dispute involves any question of national importance or is of such a nature
that industrial establishments situated in more than one State are likely to be interested in, or affected by, such
dispute and that the dispute should be adjudicated by a National Tribunal, then, the Central Government may,
whether or not it is the appropriate Government in relation to that dispute, at any time, by order in writing,
refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to
any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a National Tribunal for adjudication.]
(2) Where the parties to an industrial dispute apply in the prescribed manner, whether jointly or separately, for
a reference of the dispute to a Board, Court, 6 [Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal], the appropriate
Government, if satisfied that the persons applying represent the majority of each party, shall make the
reference accordingly. 7 [(2A) An order referring an industrial dispute to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National
Tribunal under this section shall specify the period within which such Labour Court, Tribunal or National
Tribunal shall submit its award on such dispute to the appropriate Government: Provided that where such
industrial dispute is connected with an individual workman, no such period shall exceed three months:
Provided further that where the parties to an industrial dispute apply in the prescribed manner, whether jointly
or separately, to the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for extension of such period or for any other
reason, and the presiding officer of such Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal considers it necessary
or expedient to extend such period, he may for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such
further period as he may think fit: Provided also that in computing any period specified in this sub-section,
the period, if any, for which the proceedings before the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal had been
stayed by any injunction or order of a Civil Court shall be excluded:
Provided also that no proceedings before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall lapse
merely on the ground that any period specified under this sub-section had expired without such
proceedings being completed.] (3) Where an industrial dispute has been referred to a Board, 1 [Labour
Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under this section, the appropriate Government may by order
prohibit the continuance of any strike or lock-out in connection with such dispute which may be in
existence on the date of the reference. 1 [(4) Where in an order referring an industrial dispute to 2 [a
Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under this section or in a subsequent order, the
appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication, 3 [the Labour Court or
the Tribunal or the National Tribunal, as the case may be], shall confine its adjudication to those points
and matters incidental thereto. (5) Where a dispute concerning any establishment or establishments
has been, or is to be, referred to a 4 [Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] under this section
and the appropriate Government is of opinion, whether on an application made to it in this behalf or
otherwise, that the dispute is of such a nature that any other establishment, group or class of
establishments of a similar nature is likely to be interested in, or affected by, such dispute, the
 appropriate Government may, at the time of making the reference or at any time thereafter but before
the submission of the award, include in that reference such establishment, group or class of
establishments, whether or not at the time of such inclusion any dispute exists or is apprehended in
that establishment, group or class of establishments.] 5 [(6) Where any reference has been made under
sub-section (1A) to a National Tribunal, then notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no
Labour Court or Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any matter which is under
adjudication before the National Tribunal, and accordingly,— (a) if the matter under adjudication
before the National Tribunal is pending a proceeding before a Labour Court or Tribunal, the proceeding
before the Labour Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, in so far as it relates to such matter, shall
be deemed to have been quashed on such reference to the National Tribunal; and (b) it shall not be
lawful for the appropriate Government to refer the matter under adjudication before the National
Tribunal to any Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication during the pendency of the proceeding in
relation to such matter before the National Tribunal. 6 [Explanation.—In this sub-section, “Labour
Court” or “Tribunal” includes any Court or Tribunal or other authority constituted under any law
relating to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in any State.] (7) Where any
industrial dispute, in relation to which the Central Government is not the appropriate Government, is
referred to a National Tribunal, then notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any reference in
section 15, section 17, section 19, section 33A, section 33B and section 36A to the appropriate
Government in relation to such dispute shall be construed as a reference to the Central Government
but, save as aforesaid and as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, any reference in any other
provision of this Act to the appropriate Government in relation to that dispute shall mean a reference
to the State Government.] 7 [(8) No proceedings before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal
in relation to an industrial dispute shall lapse merely by reason of the death of any of the parties to the
dispute being a workman, and such Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall complete such
proceedings and submit its award to the appropriate Government.]

TOPIC 05: AWARD AND SETTLEMENT

What is award -

The judgment of an arbitrator is called his Award. Award (Judgement) of Arbitrators under section 10A is
an Award.

Definition of Award -

Section 2(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act,1947 defines Award as follows -

According to Section 2(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ‘Award’ means an interim or a final
determination of any Industrial Dispute or of any question relating thereto by any Labour Court, Industrial
Tribunal or National Industrial Tribunal and includes an arbitration award made under section 10A.

Ingredients of Award -

To constitute Award under Section 2(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 the following ingredients
are to be satisfied -

(a) An Award is an interim or final determination of an industrial dispute.

(b) It is an Interim or final determination of any question relating to such dispute.

(c) Such interim or final determination is made by any Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal or National
Industrial Tribunal.

(d) Award (Judgement) of Arbitrators under section 10A is an Award.

What is Settlement -

According to Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 “Settlement” means a settlement
arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding and includes a written agreement between the employer
and workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding where such agreement has
been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to
an officer authorised in this behalf by the appropriate Government and the conciliation officer.

Distinction between Awards and Settlement

No Award Settlement
1 Section 2(b) of the Industrial Section 2(p) of the Industrial
dispute Act 1947 defines dispute Act 1947 defines
Award. Settlement.
2 “Award” means an interim or a “Settlement” means a
final determination of any settlement arrived at in the
industrial dispute or of any course of conciliation
question relating thereto by any proceeding and includes a
Labour Court, Industrial written agreement between
Tribunal or National Industrial the employer and workmen
Tribunal and includes an arrived at otherwise than in
arbitration award made under the course of conciliation
Section 10-A. proceeding where such
agreement has been signed
by the parties thereto in such
manner as may be prescribed
and a copy thereof has been
sent to an officer authorized
in this behalf by the
appropriate Government and
the conciliation officer.
3 It is the decision given by the It is arrived at as a result of
arbitrator, Labour Court or conciliation between the
Industrial Tribunal. parties to the settlement.
4 It resembles the judgment of a It resembles a gentleman
Court. agreement.
5 It is to be signed by the It is signed by the parties to
Presiding Officer. the dispute.

On whom Awards and Settlements are binding

According to Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Awards and Settlements are binding
on the following persons -

(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the
course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an arbitration award which has become enforceable
shall be binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to arbitration.

(3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings and an award of a Labour
Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be binding on-

(a) All parties to the industrial dispute;

 (b) All other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the
Board, arbitrator Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, records the opinion that
they were so summoned without proper cause;

(c) Where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or
assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates;

(d) All persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment on the date
of the dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part.

Penalty for breach of Settlement or Award -

If any person who commits breach of any terms of a settlement or Award is liable for punishment. The
punishment provided for is imprisonment which may extend to 6 months or with fine or with both.

Period of operation of Awards and Settlement

Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 provides for the period of operation of Award and
Settlement.

(1) A settlement shall come into operation on such date as is agreed upon by the parties to the dispute,
and if no date is agreed upon, on the date on which the memorandum of the settlement is signed by the
parties to the dispute.

Conclusion:
A settlement is an agreement reached among the parties to a workers' compensation claim. This includes
you, your employer and the workers' compensation insurer (unless your employer is self-insured). This is a
type of contract, and it may bar you from seeking further compensation for your injury.

An award, on the other hand, is granted to you by the workers' compensation court. This may include
medical benefits or other types of workers' compensation awards based on the specifics of your injury. For
example, a judge can order - or an insurance company can admit for - temporary and permanent disability
benefits. This isn't a settlement. You don't have to sign away any rights to get these benefits.

Topic 01: HISTORY OF LABOUR LAWS

Labour laws are a set of laws that govern the rights and liabilities of persons employed in an organization
and that of the organization as well. They act as a medium between workers, organizations, and the
collectivity of workers i.e trade unions. They can be divided into two categories, one that governs the
relationship between the employer, employee, and the trade unions; and the second deals with the individual
rights of employees. They define rights and liabilities of workers, trade unions, and employers as well,
Labor law entails within its ambit the following:
• Industrial relations – This covers within its ambit the unfair labor practices and working of trade
unions.
• Workplace safety – This covers the safety requirements and redressal mechanisms in case of any
untoward incident.
• Employment standards – This covers the layoff procedures, working hour regulations, minimum
wages including a provision regarding leaves.

Requirement of Labour Law

Labour law works on a basic premise that industries are promoters of development and it is in the best
interest of the nations to let them function in a congenial environment, but on the flip side protection of the
nation’s workforce is the sole responsibility of the nation’s governments. Labour laws are also required to
assure the workers that their interests will be protected in case of infringement of their rights.
History of Labour Laws
Labour laws can be traced back to varied parts of the world. European scholars laid emphasis on the
importance of the guilds and apprenticeship systems prevalent in medieval times. On the other hand, Asian
scholars trace labour laws back to the Babylon code (18th century BCE); and on the laws of the Manu as
well, Meanwhile American authors guide us towards the law of the Indies enunciated in Spain in the 17th
century for its ramping society.
They were developed as the result of the industrial revolution during the 18th century. It became essential to
stop the unfair treatment meted out to the workers, as the rate at which the industries were going at the cost
of labour was a disaster, on the flip side with the french revolution in the picture, society was moving
towards social justice so as the cumulative result of conflict, labour laws were brought in the 18th century,
but in the true sense, they received acceptance in the 20th century.

Deliberations are undertaken by countries to establish effective Labor Laws

Britain – Whitley commission advocated for industrial councils to be set up throughout the world. A
conference was held in February 1918 attended by the delegates of Britain, France, Belgium, and Italy
which championed the cause for establishing an International labour rights body and easing the diplomatic
procedure to benefit the labour.
America – American Federation of Labor published an apolitical report that advocated for strengthening the
collective bargaining process and improving the lives of persons currently engaged in industries.
The build-up to the International Labour Organization
At the end of WWI, two viewpoints emerged to make amends for the future. The International Federation of
Trade Unions (IFTU) called for a meeting in Berne and it advocated changes for the future and had a look at
the changes that were made in the past. The Americans boycotted this meeting, however, some consensus
was achieved and certain demands such as ending wage labour and establishing socialism, along with these
demands the IFTU also advocated for establishing an international body associated with the league of
nations that would enforce labour legislation around the world.
The British advocated for establishing an international parliament that would help in the implementation of
labour laws in countries associated with the league of nations. Each nation would be represented by two of
its delegates in the parliament. An office would be created to collect data on labour issues. Some of the
members from the American side were not convinced about the concept of labour office and recommended
that the office should only be empowered to make recommendations and enforcement should be the forte of
the league of nations. The British vehemently opposed this idea, but the American proposal was adopted.
The American side made certain proposals that were also accepted are as follows:
1. Labour should be treated as human beings and not commodities.
2. The right to minimum wages should be protected.
3. There should be no wage disparity between men and women.
4. Equal pay for equal work.
5. The right to form associations is inherent and should be protected.
6. Child labour below the age of 14 should be abolished.
7. An eight-hour workday or a 40-hour workweek should be the norm across the globe.
8. Six-day working should be an established norm.
9. Foreign workers to be treated on par with domestic workers.
10. Condition of factories should be made habitable and congenial work environments should be pushed.
The final report was submitted by the Commission on 4th March and was adopted on 11th April. The report
was an integral amalgamation of the Treaty of Versailles. The first International labour conference began on
29th October 1919 in Washington DC and adopted the international labour conventions which dealt with the
following issues:
• Maximum working hours;
• Benefits for women during the period of maternity;
• Prohibition of women to work in the night; and
• Regulating working hours for the young.
The French socialist, Albert Thomas, became the Director-General. The ILO became a part and parcel of the
United Nations after the League of Nations was abolished.
LABOR LAWS IN INDIA
Labor Laws in India can be further divided into:
During the British raj
The laws were incorporated to benefit the prospects of the business and to adhere to certain norms
established by the International Labour Organization. Here is a list of laws passed during that time:
Factories Act, 1883 – This Act was incorporated by the British to fix certain working conditions such as 8
hours of working hours, the prohibition of women in night employment, and the abolition of child labour.
This Act also stipulated for overtime wages,
• Trade Disputes Act, 1929– This Act was passed to regulate the relations between the employer,
employees, and the unions of employees. Provisions were inculcated to curb the rights of unions to
conduct strikes and of employers to declare a lockout. This was done to make sure industrial
progress is not halted.
After Independence
Independent India was formed on the idea of social justice. Following are certain enactments keeping in
mind the larger objective:
• Factories Act, 1948 – This Act deals with provisions such as working hours, safety, and safety of
women workforce.
• Minimum Wages Act, 1948 – This Act ascertains the minimum wages that have to be paid to skilled
and unskilled workers. The minimum wages have to be proportional to the work undertaken.
• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – This is one of the most important legislations that intends to promote
industrial peace and harmony and to promote growth. This piece of legislation intends to solve
industrial disputes through arbitration and adjudication.
• Child Labor Prohibition Act- This Act was brought in to fulfil the constitutional objective to prevent
exploitation. The act prevents children below 14 years old from being employed in hazardous jobs.
•
The interesting point to note is that the labour laws find a mention in the concurrent list of the Constitution,
which means both state and centre can draft and implement laws regarding the same. There are 200 state
laws, 40 central laws, still, that daunting image of a child sleeping on a bag that is being dragged on by a
worker will haunt us in the coming times. An attempt has been made by the central government to combine
the various laws into codes. Following is the list of codes:

Code on wages
The aim of the code was to consolidate various laws on wages and to ease out the payment of wages. The
followings Acts are being combined into one:
1. Payment of Wages Act, 1936;
2. Minimum Wages Act, 1948;
3. Payment of Bonus Act, 1965; and
4. Equal Remuneration Act, 1976.
Certain changes that are being introduced are that Section 6 of the Code empowers the central and the state
governments as well to fix minimum wages for all employees covered by the code, unlike the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948, which provided for fixation of minimum wages mentioned in the schedule of the Act.
Moreover, under Section 9 of the Code, the central government will fix the floor wages considering the
working conditions of the workers and the state government cannot fix minimum wages below what the
centre has envisaged under the floor rates.
Code on industrial relations
This code offers certain relaxations, retrenchment, strikes, and lockouts. The followings are the acts brought
under this code:
1. Trade Unions Act, 1926;
2. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946;
3. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Certain changes that are being made is that the definition of the industry, mentioned in the Industrial
Disputes Act under Section 2(p), has been modified and the exceptions mentioned under Section 2(j) have
been deleted. Such as hospitals and dispensaries, educational, scientific, research or training institutions,
khadi or village industries. Any activity that is considered as a profession practised by an individual or body
of the individual. Definition of the industrial dispute under Section 2(k) is also expanded to include within
its ambit, discharge, dismissal, retrenchment, or termination of workers.
Code on social security
This code prescribes social security for workers. It has replaced the following Acts:
1. The Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952;
2. The Employees State Insurance Act, 1948;
3. The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961;
4. The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972;
5. The Employees Exchange (Compulsory Notification Of Vacancies) Act, 1959;
6. The Employees Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959;
7. The Cine Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1981;
8. The Unorganized Workers Social Security Act, 2008; and
9. Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
One of the scintillating features of the code is that now it includes within its ambit gig workers, platform
workers, and unorganized workers. This code envisages protecting the gig workers as well. They are defined
as a person who performs work in an unconventional setup and earns from the relationship outside that of
employer-employee This will probably cover workers who are working for food delivery and e-commerce
delivery services. Platform workers refer to those workers who also cannot be confined to the employee-
employer relationship and are employed by organizations to access other organizations via internet platforms
to solve specific problems or provide specific services.

The code on occupational safety, health, and working conditions

This code prescribes standards for working conditions, health, and safety of working conditions. The code
replaces 13 of the previous laws. Some of them are listed below:
1. The Factories Act, 1948;
2. The Mines Act, 1952;
3. Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service)
Act, 1996; and
4. The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
The code empowers the state government as well to exempt any new factory from the provisions of the new
code. The government has also processed mechanisms to ease out-licensing for contracting firms to hire
across the country. And introducing gender parity, The government has granted access to women to work in
positions as they were prohibited earlier.
Conclusion
Through the course of the article, we have tracked the development of labour laws and have given a brief
overview of the latest amendments introduced by the Indian government. With the COVID-19 pandemic
wreaking havoc on the economies around the world, labour laws need to be modified albeit precaution that
they do not transform into a tool for harassment and exploitation

TOPIC 01: LABOUR LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL PARADIGM

Indian constitution provides numerous safeguards for the protection of labour rights. These safeguards are in
the form of fundamental rights and the Directive principle of State policy.
Articles 14,19,21,23 and 24 comprise of fundamental rights promised under part III of the Constitution.
Articles 38, 39, 39A, 41, 42, 43,43A and 47 form part of the Directive Principles of State Policy under Part
IV of the Constitution, but they are not enforceable in a court of law.
Article 39, 39A, 41, 42, 43 and 43A collectively can be termed “Magna Carta of working class in India.”

Let us have a brief overview of these Articles‐

Article 14 commands State to treat any person equally before the law.
Article (19) (1) (c) grants citizens the right to form association or unions.
Article 21 promises protection of life and personal liberty.
Article 23 prohibits forced labour.
Article 24 prohibits employment of children below the age of fourteen years.
Article 39(a) provides that the State shall secure to its citizens equal right to an adequate means of
livelihood.
Article 39A provides that the State shall secure the equal opportunities for access to justice to its citizens
and ensure that such opportunities are not denied by reason of economic or other disabilities.
Article 41 provides that within the limits of its economic capacity the State shall secure for the Right to
work and education.
Article 42 instructs State to make provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work and for
maternity relief.
Article 43 orders the State to secure a living wage, decent condition of work and social and cultural
opportunities to all workers through legislation or economic organisation. And
Article 43A provides for the participation of workers in Management of Industries through legislation.

Article 38 - (a) directs the state to promote welfare of the people by securing and protecting a social order in
which justice social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of national life. (b) directs that
State shall, in particular, strive to minimise inequality in income and endeavour to eliminate inequality in
status, facilities and opportunities amongst individuals as well as groups of people in different areas and
vocations.
Articles 39 - declares that the state shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing
• that citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood.
• that the ownership and the control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as to
best subserve the common good.
• that the operation of the economic system does not result in concentration of wealth and means of
production to the common detriment.
• that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women. the health and strength of the
workers, men and women and the tender age of the children not abused and t
• hat the citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter the avocations unsuited to their health
and strength.
• the children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in condition of
freedom and dignity and are protected against exploitation against moral and material abandonment.
Article 41 - directs that the State shall within the limit of its economic capacity and development make
effective provision for securing right to work, to education, and to public assistance in case of
unemployment old age, sickness and disablement and in other cases of undeserved want.
Article 42 - directs the state to make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for
maternity relief.
Article 43 - directs that the state shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation
or in any other way to all workers, agricultural, industrial or other living wage, conditions of work ensuring
a decent. standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in
particular, the state shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on an individual or cooperative basis in
rural areas.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. union of India-SC 1984, it was held that Article 21 assures a citizen the
right to live with human dignity free from exploitation. The Govt. is bound to ensure observance of social
welfare and labour laws enacted to secure for workmen a life compatible with human dignity.

In People's Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India Sc. 1983, it was held that labour or services
for a remuneration less than a minimum wages amounts to "forced labour"

In the case, Bharatiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Munch vs. Union .of India, SC 1987, it was held that
Classification of employees of P&T deptt. into regular employees and casual employees for the purpose of
paying the latter less than minimum payable to regular employees is not tenable and violative of Article 14
and 16 of Constitution. It also amounts to exploitation of labour and is opposed to clause (2) of Article 38
which provides that the State in particular strive, to"minimise inequality in income.

In Minerva Mills vs. Union of India, it was held that Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights should
be harmonised without considering Directives as inferior and subservient to Fundamental Rights.
TOPIC 02 : DEFINITIONS

INDUSTRY

Industry “Industry” means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and
includes any calling service, employment, handicra;, or industrial occupa<on or avoca<on of workmen.
[Sec$on 2(j)]
The Supreme Court carried out an indepth study of the defini<on of the term industry in a comprehensive
manner in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A Rajiappa, AIR 1978 SC 548
(hereina;er referred to as Bangalore Water Supply case), a;er considering various previous judicial
decisions on the subject and in the process, it rejected some of them, while evolving a new concept of the
term “industry”.

Tests for determina$on of “industry”

A;er discussing the defini<on from various angles, in the above case, the Supreme Court, laid down the
following tests to determine whether an ac<vity is covered by the defini<on of “industry” or not. It is also
referred to as the triple test:

I. (a) Where there is (i) systema<c ac<vity, (ii) organised by co-opera<on between
employer and employee, (iii) for the produc<on and/or distribu<on of goods and
services calculated to sa<sfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious
but inclusive of material things or services geared to celes<al bliss e.g., making,
on a large scale, prasad or food) prima facie, there is an “industry” in that
enterprise. (b) Absence of profit mo<ve or gainful objec<ve is irrelevant wherever
the undertaking is whether in the public, joint, private or other sector. (c) The
true focus is func<onal and the decisive test is the nature of the ac<vity with
special emphasis on the employer-employee rela<ons. (d) If the organisa<on is a
trade or business, it does not cease to be one because of philanthrophy
anima<ng the undertaking.
II. Although Sec<on 2(i) uses words of the widest amplitude in its two limbs, their
meaning cannot be magnified to over-stretch itself. Undertaking must suffer a
contextual and associa<onal shrinkage, so also, service, calling and the like. This
yields the inference that all organised ac<vity possessing the triple elements in (i)
although not trade or business, may s<ll be “industry”, provided the nature of the
ac<vity, viz., the employer - employee basis, bears resemblance to what we find
in trade or business. This takes into the fold of “industry”, undertaking, callings
and services, adventures analogous to the carrying on of trade or business. All
features, other than the methodology of carrying on the ac<vity, viz., in
organising the co-opera<on between employer and employee, may be dissimilar.
It does not maYer, if on the employment terms, there is analogy.
III. Applica<on of these guidelines should not stop short of their logical reach by
invoca<on of creeds, cults or inner sense of incongruity or outer sense of
mo<va<on for or resultant of the economic opera<ons. The ideology of the Act
being industrial disputes between employer and workmen, the range of this
statutory ideology must inform the reach of the statutory defini<on, nothing less,
nothing more.

Hence, the Supreme Court observed that professions, clubs, educa<onal ins<tu<ons. co-opera<ves,
research ins<tutes, charitable projects and other kindred adventures, if they fulfil the triple tests listed in
(1), cannot be exempted from the scope of Sec<on 2(j). A restricted category of professions, clubs, co-
opera<ves and gurukulas and liYle research labs, may qualify for exemp<on if, in simple ventures,
substan<ally and going by the dominant nature criterion, substan<vely, no employees are entertained but
in minimal maYers, marginal employees are hired without destroying the non-employee character of the
unit.

If in a pious or altruis<c mission many employ themselves, free or for small honoranum or like return,
mainly drawn by sharing in the purpose or cause, such as lawyers volunteering to run a free legal services
clinic or doctors serving in their spare hours in a free medical centre or ashramites working at the bidding
of the holiness, divinity or like central personality and the services are supplied free or at nominal cost and
those who serve are not engaged for remunera<on or on the basis of master and servant rela<onship, then
the ins<tu<on is not an industry even if stray servants, manual or technical, are hired. Such undertakings
alone are exempt - not other generosity compassion, developmental compassion or project.

Criteria for determining dominant nature of undertaking The Supreme Court, in Bangalore Water Supply
case laid down the following guidelines for deciding the dominant nature of an undertaking:
(a) Where a complex of ac<vi<es, some of which qualify for exemp<on, others not, involves the employees
on the total undertaking. Some of whom are not “workmen” or some departments are not produc<ve of
goods and services if isolated, nature of the department will be the true test. The whole undertaking will be
“industry” although those who are not “workmen” defini<on may not be benefit by the status.
(b) Notwithstanding with previous clause, sovereign func<ons strictly understood alone qualify for
exemp<on and not the welfare ac<vi<es or economic adventures undertaken by Government or statutory
bodies.
(c) Even in departments discharging sovereign func<ons, if there are units which are industries and they are
substan<ally severable, then they can be considered to come within Sec<on 2(j).
(d) Cons<tu<onal and competently enacted legisla<ve provisions may well remove an undertaking from the
scope of the Act. The above decision of the Supreme Court has a wide sweep. The triple test along with
dominant nature criteria will cover almost the en<re labour force in the country. The charitable or
missionary ins<tu<ons, hospital, educa<onal and other research ins<tu<ons, municipal corpora<ons, firms
of chartered accountants, solicitors’ f irms, etc., which were not held to be “industry” earlier will now are
covered by the defini<on of “industry”.

Now let us see whether the following ac<vi<es would fall under industry or not:
1. Sovereign func$ons: Sovereign func<ons strictly understood alone qualify for exemp<on, not the welfare
ac<vi<es or economic adventures undertaken by Government or statutory bodies. Even in departments
discharging sovereign func<ons, if there are units which are industries and they are substan<ally severable
then they can be considered to come within Sec<on 2(j). (Bangalore Water Supply case). If a department of
a municipality discharged many func<ons, some pertaining to “industry” and other non-industrial ac<vi<es,
the predominant func<on of the department shall be the criterion for the purposes of the Act (Corpn. of
City of Nagpur v. Employees, AIR 1960 SC 675).
2. Municipali$es: Following Departments of the municipality were held, to be “industry” (i) Tax (ii) Public
Conveyance (iii) Fire Brigade (iv) Ligh<ng (v) Water Works (vi) City Engineers (vii) Enforcement
(Encroachment) (viii) Sewerage (ix) Health (x) Market (xi) Public Gardens (xii) Educa<on (xiii) Prin<ng Press
(xiv) Building and (xv) General administra<on. If a department of a municipality discharges many func<ons
some pertaining to industry and others non-industrial, the predominant func<on of the department shall
be the criterion for the purpose of the Act.
3. Hospitals and Charitable ins$tu$ons: Exemp<ons to charitable ins<tu<ons under Sec<on 32(5) of
Payment of Bonus Act is not relevant to the construc<on of Sec<on 2(j), FICCI v. Workmen, (1972) 1 SCC 40,
there is an industry in the enterprise, provided the nature of the ac<vity, namely the employer-employee
basis bears resemblance to what is found in trade or business. This takes into the fold of industry
undertakings, callings, services and adventures ‘analogous to the carrying on of trade or business’. Absence
of profit mo<ve or gainful objec<ve is irrelevant for “industry”, be the venture in the public, joint, private or
other sector. The true focus is func<onal and the decisive test is the nature of the ac<vity with special
emphasis on the employer-employee rela<ons. If the organisa<on is a trade or business it does not cease
to be one because of philanthropy anima<ng the undertaking. Charitable ins<tu<ons fall into three
categories: (a) those that yield profit but the profits are siphoned off for altruis<c purposes; (b) those that
make no profit but hire the services of employees as in any other business, but the goods and services
which are the output, are made available at a low or at no cost to the indigent poor; and (c) those that are
oriented on a humane mission fulfilled by men who work, not because they are paid wages, but because
they share the passion for the cause and derive job sa<sfac<on from their contribu<on. The first two are
industries but not the third, on the assump<on that they all involve co-opera<on between employers and
employees (Bangalore Water Supply case). The following ins<tu<ons are held to be “industry”: (1) State
Hospital (State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1960 SC 610); (2) Ayurvedic Pharmacy and
Hospital (Lalit Hari Ayurvedic College Pharmacy v. Workers Union, AIR 1960 SC 1261); (3) Ac<vi<es of
Panjrapole (Bombay Panjrapole v. Workmen, (1971) 3 SCC 349).

4. Clubs: A restricted category of professions, clubs, co-opera<ves and even Gurukulas may qualify for
exemp<on if, in simple ventures, substan<ally and going by the dominant nature criterion substan<vely, no
employees are entertained, but in minimal maYers marginal employees are hired without destroying the
non employee character of the unit. But larger clubs are “industry” (as per Bangalore Water Supply case).

5. Universi$es, Research Ins$tu$ons etc.: As regards ins<tu<ons, if the triple tests of systema<c ac<vity,
coopera<on between employer and employee and produc<on of goods and services were to be applied, a
university, a college, a research ins<tute or teaching ins<tu<on will be “industry”. The following ins<tu<ons
were held to be “industry”: Ahmedabad Tex<le Industries Research Associa<on, Tocklai Experimental
Sta<on. Indian Standard Ins<tute, and Universi<es. However Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad was
held not to be an Industry by the Supreme Court (1997 Lab. IC 1912 SC). Since it is carrying on research not
for the benefit of others and moreover, it is not engaged in commercial or industrial ac<vity.
6. Professional Firms: A solicitors establishment can be an “industry” (as per Bangalore Water Supply case).
Regarding liberal professions like lawyers, doctors, etc., the test of direct coopera<on between capital and
labour in the produc<on of goods or in the rendering of service or that coopera<on between employer and
employee is essen<al for carrying out the work of the enterprise. The personal character of the rela<onship
between a doctor or a lawyer with his professional assistant may be of such a kind that requires complete
confidence and harmony in the produc<ve ac<vity in which they may be coopera<ng.
7. Voluntary services: If in a pious or altruis<c mission, many employ themselves free or for small honoraria
or like return, mainly drawn by sharing in the purpose or cause such as lawyers volunteering to run a free
legal services clinic or doctors serving in their spare hours in a free medical centre or ashramites working at
the bidding of the Holiness, divinity or Central personality and the services are supplied free or at a
nominal cost and those who serve are not engaged for remunera<on or on the basis of master and servant
rela<onship, then the ins<tu<on is not an industry even if stray servants manual or technical are hired.
Such eleemosynary or like undertakings alone are exempted. (Bangalore Water Supply case)

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE
“Industrial Dispute” means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between
employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or
non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person. [Section 2(k)]

The above definition can be analysed and discussed under the following heads:
(i)There should exist a dispute or difference;

ii)The dispute or difference should be between: (a) employer and employer; (b) employer and workmen; or
(c) workmen and workmen.

iii)The dispute or difference should be connected with (a) the employment or non-employment, or (b) terms
of employment, or (c) the conditions of labour of any person;

iv) The dispute should relate to an industry as defined in Section 2(j).

 (a) Existence of a dispute or difference
The existence of a dispute or difference between the parties is central to the definition of industrial dispute.
Ordinarily a dispute or difference exists when workmen make demand and the same is rejected by the
employer. However, the demand should be such which the employer is in a position to fulfil. The dispute or
difference should be fairly defined and of real substance and not a mere personal quarrel or a grumbling or
an agitation. The term “industrial dispute” connotes a real and substantial difference having some element of
persistency, and likely, and if not adjusted, to endanger the industrial peace of the community. An industrial
dispute exists only when the same has been raised by the workmen with the employer. A mere demand to the
appropriate Government without a dispute being raised by the workmen with their employer regarding such
demand, cannot become an industrial dispute (Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal
1968-I L.L.J. 834 S.C.). However, in Bombay Union of Journalists v. The Hindu, AIR, 1964 S.C. 1617, the
Supreme Court observed that for making reference under Section 10, it is enough if industrial dispute exists
or is apprehended on the date of reference. Therefore, even when no formal demands have been made by the
employer, industrial dispute exists if the demands were raised during the conciliation proceedings. When an
industrial dispute is referred for adjudication the presumption is that, there is an industrial dispute (Workmen
v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1984) 4 SCC 392). Unless there is a demand by the workmen and that demand is
not complied with by the management, there cannot be any industrial dispute within the meaning of Section
2(k). Mere participation by the employer in the conciliation proceedings will not be sufficient (W.S.
Insulators of India Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras 1977-II Labour Law Journal 225).

(b) Parties to the dispute

Most of the industrial disputes exist between the employer and the workmen and the remaining combination
of persons who can raise the dispute, has been added to widen the scope of the term “industrial dispute”. So
the question is who can raise the dispute? The term “industrial dispute” conveys the meaning that the dispute
must be such as would affect large groups of workmen and employers ranged on opposite sides. The
disputes can be raised by workmen themselves or their union or federation on their behalf. This is based on
the fact that workmen have right of collective bargaining. Thus, there should be community of interest in the
dispute. It is not mandatory that the dispute should be raised by a registered Trade Union. Once it is shown
that a body of workmen either acting through their union or otherwise had sponsored a workmen’s case, it
becomes an industrial dispute (Newspaper Ltd., Allahabad v. Industrial Tribunal, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1328).
The dispute can be raised by minority union also. Even a sectional union or a substantial number of
members of the union can raise an industrial dispute. However, the members of a union who are not
workmen of the employer against whom the dispute is sought to be raised, cannot by their support convert
an individual dispute into an industrial dispute. In other words, persons who seek to support the cause must
themselves be directly and substantially interested in the dispute and persons who are not the employees of
the same employer cannot be regarded as so interested. But industrial dispute can be raised in respect of
non-workmen (Workmen v. Cotton Greaves & Co. Ltd. 1971 2 SCC 658). Industrial dispute can be initiated
and continued by legal heirs even after the death of a workman (LAB 1C 1999 Kar. 286).

Individual dispute whether industrial dispute?

Till the provisions of Section 2-A were inserted in the Act, it has been held by the Supreme Court that an
individual dispute per se is not industrial dispute. But it can develop into an industrial dispute when it is
taken up by the union or substantial number of workmen (Central Province Transport Service v. Raghunath
Gopal Patwardhan, AIR 1957 S.C. 104). This ruling was confirmed later on in the case of Newspaper Ltd. v.
Industrial Tribunal. In the case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate (1958) I.
L.L.J. 500, the Supreme Court held that it is not that dispute relating to “any person” can become an
industrial dispute. There should be community of interest. A dispute may initially be an individual dispute,
but the workmen may make that dispute as their own, they may espouse it on the ground that they have a
community of interest and are directly and substantially interested in the employment, non-employment, or
conditions of work of the concerned workmen. All workmen need not to join the dispute. Any dispute which
affects workmen as a class is an industrial dispute, even though, it might have been raised by a minority
group. It may be that at the date of dismissal of the workman there was no union. But that does not mean
that the dispute cannot become an industrial dispute because there was no such union in existence on that
date. If it is insisted that the concerned workman must be a member of the union on the date of his dismissal,
or there was no union in that particular industry, then the dismissal of such a workman can never be an
industrial dispute although the other workmen have a community of interest in the matter of his dismissal
and the cause for which on the manner in which his dismissal was brought about directly and substantially
affects the other workmen. The only condition for an individual dispute turning into an industrial dispute, as
laid down in the case of Dimakuchi Tea Estate is the necessity of a community of interest and not whether
the concerned workman was or was not a member of the union at the time of his dismissal. Further, the
community of interest does not depend on whether the concerned workman was a member or not at the date
when the cause occurred, for, without his being a member the dispute may be such that other workmen by
having a common interest therein would be justified in taking up the dispute as their own and espousing it.
Whether the individual dispute has been espoused by a substantial number of workmen depends upon the
facts of each case. If after supporting the individual dispute by a trade union or substantial number of
workmen, the support is withdrawn subsequently, the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority is not
affected. However, at the time of making reference for adjudication, individual dispute must have been
espoused, otherwise it will not become an industrial dispute and reference of such dispute will be invalid.

(c) Subject matter of dispute

The dispute should relate to employment or non-employment or terms of employment or conditions of
labour of any person. The meaning of the term “employment or non-employment” was explained by Federal
Court in the case of Western India Automobile Association v. Industrial Tribunal. If an employer refuses to
employ a workman dismissed by him, the dispute relates to non-employment of workman. But the union
insists that a particular person should not be employed by the employer, the dispute relates to employment of
workman. Thus, the “employment or non-employment” is concerned with the employers failure or refusal to
employ a workman. The expression “terms of employment” refers to all terms and conditions stated in the
contract of employment. The expression terms of employment would also include those terms which are
understood and applied by parties in practice or, habitually or by common consent without ever being
incorporated in the Contract (Workmen v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., 1984 1 SCC 392). The expression
“condition of labour” is much wider in its scope and usually it was reference to the amenities to be provided
to the workmen and the conditions under which they will be required to work. The matters like safety, health
and welfare of workers are also included within this expression. It was held that the definition of industrial
dispute in Section 2(k) is wide enough to embrace within its sweep any dispute or difference between an
employer and his workmen connected with the terms of their employment. A settlement between the
employer and his workmen affects the terms of their employment. Therefore prima facie, the definition of
Industrial dispute in Section 2(k) will embrace within its sweep any fraudulent and involuntary character of
settlement. Even a demand can be made through the President of Trade Union (1988 1 LLN 202). Dispute
between workmen and employer regarding confirmation of workman officiating in a higher grade is an
industrial dispute (1984 4 SCC 392). Employer’s failure to keep his verbal assurance, claim for
compensation for loss of business; dispute of workmen who are not employees of the Purchaser who
purchased the estate and who were not yet the workmen of the Purchaser’s Estate, although directly
interested in their employment, etc. were held to be not the industrial disputes. Payment of pension can be a
subject matter of an industrial dispute (ICI India Ltd. v. Presiding Officer L.C., 1993 LLJ II 568).

(d) Dispute in an “Industry”

Lastly, to be an “industrial dispute”, the dispute or difference must relate to an industry. Thus, the existence
of an “industry” is a condition precedent to an industrial dispute. No industrial dispute can exist without an
industry. The word “industry” has been fully discussed elsewhere. However, in Pipraich Sugar Mills Ltd. v.
P.S.M. Mazdoor Union, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 95, it was held that an “industrial dispute” can arise only in an
“existing industry” and not in one which is closed altogether. The mere fact that the dispute comes under the
definition of Section 2(k) does not automatically mean that the right sought to be enforced is one created or
recognised and enforceable only under the Act (National and Grindlays Bank Employees’ Union, Madras v.
I. Kannan (Madras), 1978 Lab. I.C. 648). Where the right of the employees is not one which is recognised
and enforceable under the Industrial Disputes Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted

WORKMAN

Workman” means any person (including an appren<ce) employed in any industry to do any manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, opera<onal, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms
of employment be expressed or implied and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in rela<on
to an industrial dispute, includes:

(a) any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connec<on with, or as a
consequence of that dispute, or
(b) any person whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include
any such person:
(i) who is subject to the Army Act, 1950, or the Air Force Act, 1950 or the Navy Act, 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 administra<ve capacity; or
iv)who is employed in a supervisory capacity drawing more than Rs. 1,600 per month as wages; or
v)who is exercising either by the nature of the du<es aYached to the office or by reason of the powers
vested in him, func<ons mainly of a managerial nature. [Sec$on 2(s)]

(a) Employed in “any industry”

To be a workman, a person must have been employed in an ac<vity which is an “industry” as per Sec<on
2(j). Even those employed in opera<on incidental to such industry are also covered under the defini<on of
workman.
In the case of J.K. CoYon Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. L.A.T., AIR 1964 S.C. 737, the Supreme Court
held that ‘malis’ looking a;er the garden aYached to bungalows provided by the company to its officers
and directors, are engaged in opera<ons incidentally connected with the main industry carried on by the
employer. It observed that in this connec<on it is hardly necessary to emphasise that in the modern world,
industrial opera<ons have become complex and complicated and for the efficient and successful
func<oning of any industry, several incidental opera<ons are called in aid and it is the totality of all these
opera<ons that ul<mately cons<tutes the industry as a whole. Wherever it is shown that the industry has
employed an employee to assist one or the other opera<on incidental to the main industrial opera<on, it
would be unreasonable to deny such an employee the status of a workman on the ground that his work is
not directly concerned with the main work or opera<on of the industry.

(b) Person employed

A person cannot be a workman unless he is employed by the employer in any industry. The rela<onship of
employer and workman is usually supported by a contract of employment which may be expressed or
implied. This is also a must for regarding an appren<ce as a worker (Achutan v. Babar, 1996-LLR-824 Ker.).
But such a ques<on cannot be derived merely on the basis of appren<ceship contract (R.D. Paswan v. L.C.,
1999 LAB 1C Pat 1026). The employee agrees to work under the supervision and control of his employer.
Here one must dis<nguish between contract for employment or service and contract of employment or
service. In the former, the employer can require what is to be done but in the laYer, he can not only order
what is to be done, but also how it shall be done. In the case of contract for employment, the person will
not be held as a ‘workman’ but only an ‘independent contractor’. There should be due control and
supervision by the employer for a master and servant rela<onship (Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v.
State of Saurashtra, AIR 1957 SC 264). Payment on piece rate by itself does not disprove the rela<onship of
master and servant (1983 4 SCC 464). Even a part <me employee is a worker (P.N. Gula< v. Labour
Commissioner 1977 (35) FLR 35). Since he is under an obliga<on to work for fixed hours every day, jural
rela<onship of master and servant would exist. A casual worker is nonetheless a workman (G.Yeddi Reddi v.
Brooke Bond India Ltd., 1994 Lab 1C 186).

(c) Employed to do skilled or unskilled etc.

Only those persons who are engaged in the following types of work are covered by the defini<on of
“workman”: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Skilled or unskilled manual work; Supervisory work; Technical work; Clerical
work. Where a person is doing more than one work, he must be held to be employed to do the work which
is the main work he is required to do (Burma Shell Oil Storage & Distribu<ng Co. of India v. Burma Shell
Management Staff Associa<on, AIR 1971 SC 922). Manual work referred in the defini<on includes work
which involves physical exer<on as dis<nguished from mental or intellectual exer<on. A person engaged in
supervisory work will be a workman only if he is drawing more than Rs. 1,600 per month as wages. The
designa<on of a person is not of great importance, it is the nature of his du<es which is the essence of the
issue. If a person is mainly doing supervisory work, but incidentally or for a frac<on of the <me, also does
some clerical work, it would have to be held that he is employed in supervisory capacity; and conversely, if
the main work done is of clerical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory du<es are also carried out
incidentally, will not convert his employment as a clerk into one in supervisory capacity (Anand Bazar
Patrika (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1969) II L.L.J. 670).
In other words, the dominant purpose of employment must be taken into account at first and the gloss of
addi<onal du<es to be rejected, while determining status and character of the job (AGR Rao v. Ciba Geigy
AIR 1985 SC 985). The work of labour officer in jute mill involving exercise of ini<a<ve, tact and
independence is a supervisory work. But the work of a teller in a bank does not show any element of
supervisory character.

Whether teachers are workmen or not

A;er amendment of Sec<on 2(s) of the Act, the issue whether “teachers are workmen or not” was decided
in many cases but all the cases were decided on the basis of defini<on of workman prior to amendment.
The Supreme Court in Sunderambal v. Government of Goa [AIR (1988) SC 1700. (1989) LAB 1C 1317] held
that the teachers employed by the educa<onal ins<tu<on cannot be considered as workmen within the
meaning of Sec<on 2(s) of the Act, as impar<ng of educa<on which is the main func<on of the teachers
cannot be considered as skilled or unskilled manual work or supervisory work or technical work or clerical
work. The Court in this case also said that manual work comprises of work involving physical exer<on as
dis<nct from mental and intellectual exer<on. The teacher necessarily performs intellectual du<es and the
work is mental and intellectual as dis<nct from manual. A person doing technical work is also held as a
workman. A work which depends upon the special training or scien<fic or technical knowledge of a person
is a technical work. Once a person is employed for his technical qualifica<ons, he will be held to be
employed in technical work irrespec<ve of the fact that he does not devote his en<re <me for technical
work. Thus, the person doing technical work such as engineers, foreman, technologist, medical officer,
draughtsman, etc., will fall within the defini<on of “workman”. A medical representa<ve whose main and
substan<al work is to do convassing for promo<on of sales is not a workman within the meaning of this
Sec<on (1990 Lab IC 24 Bom. DB). However, a salesman, whose du<es included manual as well as clerical
work such as to aYend to the customer, prepare cash memos, to assist manager in daily rou<ne is a
workman (Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court 1993 I LLN 300). A temple priest is not a workman (1990 1
LLJ 192 Ker.).

Person employed mainly in managerial and administra$ve capacity

Persons employed mainly in the managerial or administra<ve capacity have been excluded from the
defini<on of “workman”. Development officer in LIC is a workman (1983 4 SCC 214). In Standard Vacuum
Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Labour, it was observed that if an individual has officers subordinate to him
whose work he is required to oversee, if he has to take decision and also he is responsible for ensuring that
the maYers entrusted to his charge are efficiently conducted, and an ascertainable area or sec<on of work
is assigned to him, an inference of a posi<on of management would be jus<fiable. Occasional entrustment
of supervisory, managerial or administra<ve work, will not take a person mainly discharging clerical du<es,
out of purview of Sec<on 2(s)

EMPLOYER

Sec<on 2(g) of the ID Act defines an 'employer' to mean:

(i) in rela<on to an industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of the Central
Government or a State Government, the authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is
prescribed, the head of the department;

ii)in rela<on to an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority, the chief execu<ve officer of that
authority.

In Western India Automobile Associa<on v. IT, the federal court held the statutory defini<on to be neither
exhaus<ve nor inclusive. Observed Jus<ce Mahajan:

In rela<on to industries carried on by government and local authori<es a defini<on has been given of the
term 'employer. No aYempt, however, was made to define the term 'employer generally, or in rela<on to
other persons carrying on industries of running undertaking

The proposi<on has since not been challenged though, paradoxically, the provisions of the Act have never
been invoked to resolve industrial disputes arising in 'an industry carried on by or under the authority of
any department of the Central or a state government.

An employer does not cease to be an employer' merely because, instead of employing workmen himself,
he authorizes his agents or servants to employ them Further, in view of the provisions of Sec<on 18, judicial
pronouncements have extended the coverage of the expression employer to include his heirs, successors
and assigna However, only those who are currently employees of the transferee-employer can be lawful
par<cipants in an industrial dispute' and raise a dispute concerning such erstwhile employees of the
transferor-employer as have not been employed by the transferee-employer. The erstwhile employees of
the transferor-employer cannot, unless they are employed by the transferee-employer, themselves raise an
industrial dispute with the transferee-employer. This is so because of the requirement of master and
servant rela<onship between the disputants.

APPROPIATE GOVERNMENT
Section 2(a) appropriate Government means--

(i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning 1*** any industry carried on by or under the authority
of the Central Government, 2*** or by a railway company 3[or concerning any such controlled industry
as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government] 4*** or in relation to an industrial dispute
concerning 5[ 6[ 7[ 8[a Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation
of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948), or 9[the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed
and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)], or the Employees' State Insurance
Corporation established under section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or
the Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or the Central Board of Trustees and the State
Boards of Trustees constituted under section 5A and section 5B, respectively, of the Employees'
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), 10***, or the Life Insurance
Corporation of India established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of
1956), or 11[the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1
of 1956)], or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under section 3 of
the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central
Warehousing Corporation established under section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58
of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India established under section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52
of 1963), or the Food Corporation of India established under section 3 or a Board of Management
established for two or more contiguous States under section 16 of the Food Corporations Act, 1964
(37 of 1964), or 12[the Airports Authority of India constituted under section 3 of the Airports Authority of
India Act, 1994 (55 of 1994)],or a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3 of the Regional
Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the
Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India 13[the National Housing Bank established under section 3 of the
National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 of 1987)], or 14[ 15[an air transport service, or a banking or an
insurance company], a mine, an oilfield] 16[, a Cantonment Board,] or a 17[major port, any company in
which not less than fifty-one per cent. of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government,
or any corporation, not being a corporation referred to in this clause, established by or under any law
made by Parliament, or the Central public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the
principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the Central Government, the
Central Government, and]

[(ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute, including the State public sector undertaking, subsidiary
18

companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the
State Government, the State Government: Provided that in case of a dispute between a contractor and
the contract labour employed through the contractor in any industrial establishment where such
dispute first arose, the appropriate Government shall be the Central Government or the State
Government, as the case may be, which has control over such industrial establishment;]