I d act 1947

S K Krishnan (Querist) 12 October 2012 This query is : Resolved
the petitioner was working as Manager but divested of all functions and was asked to report to another Manager, after 2 months was terminated. Does the petitioner come under the definition workman since at the time of discharge he was just a glorified clerk without any functional responsibility or any work assigned to him In fact he was casual worker had to do whatever was assigned to him from time to time.

Can anyone help with case laws

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Sudhir Kumar, Advocate (Expert) 12 October 2012
Manger? No

S K Krishnan (Querist) 14 October 2012
As I understand the designation & salary does not matter the main criteria is the function of the employee to come under the ambit of workman.The query is at the time of discharge if the employee had no functional responsibility whatsoever and it is in writing, Will the employee come under the definition of workman.I do not have any case law specifically stating that the what counts is the function of the employee at the time of discharge . There are number of cases that function is the criteria for the employee to come under the ambit of workman, not the salary or high flying designations.

Guest (Expert) 14 October 2012
Supervisors and above do not fall within the scope of definition of a workrkman.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries