Workman status turns on actual duties, and supervisory employees above the wage ceiling fall outside statutory protection.

The principal nature of duties, not the post designation, determines whether an employee is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the recorded facts, the employee's role was mainly supervisory, with no specific material showing manual, technical, clerical, operational, or other qualifying work, and his wages exceeded the applicable statutory ceiling; he was therefore outside section 2(s). As he was not a workman, the Act's retrenchment and reinstatement protections were unavailable, and the termination made on one month's notice pay could not be impeached on that basis. The award directing reinstatement with back wages was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the employee fell within the definition of "workman" under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (ii) Whether the employee was entitled to reinstatement with back wages and whether the termination was vitiated for non-compliance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issue (i): Whether the employee fell within the definition of "workman" under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The determinative test is the principal nature of duties and functions performed, not the designation of the post. The record did not contain specific material showing that the employee performed manual, technical, clerical, operational, or other work falling within the statutory definition. The employment orders placed him in engineering posts on the administrative side, and the evidence showed that he supervised junior engineers. On the admitted facts, his work was supervisory and his wages exceeded the pre-amendment threshold applicable under section 2(s).

Conclusion: The employee was not a "workman" under section 2(s) and was not covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issue (ii): Whether the employee was entitled to reinstatement with back wages and whether the termination was vitiated for non-compliance with the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The appointment terms required one month's notice or salary in lieu of notice after confirmation. The employee was relieved by payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice, which he accepted and encashed. Since he did not fall within the statutory definition of "workman", the protections under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, including the pleaded safeguards against retrenchment, were not available to him. The award directing reinstatement and compensation in lieu of back wages therefore could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The direction for reinstatement with back wages was not maintainable and was rightly set aside.

Final Conclusion: The award of reinstatement was unsustainable, the employee was held outside the protective ambit of industrial workman status, and the management's relief was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In determining whether an employee is a "workman", the decisive factor is the principal nature of duties actually performed, and a person engaged mainly in supervisory work and drawing wages above the statutory ceiling is excluded from the definition under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

---