https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176002 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. en-us Fri, 25 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Dec 2015 12:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176002 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176002