Prospective amendment to "workman" definition; status depends on actual duties at dismissal, not later expansion.

An amendment expanding the definition of "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act was held to operate prospectively because it created new categories and affected substantive rights, and the statute showed no express or implied retrospective intent. Workman status must be determined from the nature of the duties actually performed as on the date of dismissal, not from nomenclature or later legal expansion. On the facts, the employee's functions were predominantly managerial and advisory, including representation before authorities, guidance in domestic enquiries, briefing counsel, and labour-law advice, so he did not fall within Section 2(s) and could not invoke the Act's protections.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended definition of "workman" applied retrospectively so as to bring the appellant within Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the appellant, having regard to the nature of his duties, was a workman entitled to invoke the protections under the Act.

Analysis: The relevant inquiry was held to depend on the nature of the duties actually performed and not on nomenclature. The amendment expanding the definition of "workman" was held to be prospective, as it introduced new categories and affected substantive rights rather than procedure, and there was nothing in the amending law to indicate express or implied retrospectivity. The Court further held that the applicable status is to be tested as on the date of dismissal, because an employer cannot be exposed to penal consequences under Sections 25N and 25Q of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the basis of a later-expanded definition. On the facts, the appellant's functions were found to be predominantly managerial and advisory, including representation before authorities, guiding domestic enquiries, briefing counsel, and advising management on labour matters.

Conclusion: The appellant was not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the amended definition did not apply retrospectively, and the challenge to the termination failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment expanding the definition of "workman" is prospective unless express or necessarily implied retrospectivity appears, and workman status must be determined by the nature of duties actually performed as on the date of dismissal.

---