https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283917 The dominant nature of the employee's duties determines workman status under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: legal opinion work, drafting, court representation, and departmental inquiries were held to be creative and quasi-judicial functions, not manual, clerical, operational, technical, or supervisory work. On that basis, the employee was not a workman. The Court also held that res judicata did not bar reconsideration because the earlier finding affected jurisdiction and had been reached on an incorrect legal test. The reinstatement award and supporting High Court judgments were therefore unsustainable. en-us Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:20:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283917 The dominant nature of the employee's duties determines workman status under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: legal opinion work, drafting, court representation, and departmental inquiries were held to be creative and quasi-judicial functions, not manual, clerical, operational, technical, or supervisory work. On that basis, the employee was not a workman. The Court also held that res judicata did not bar reconsideration because the earlier finding affected jurisdiction and had been reached on an incorrect legal test. The reinstatement award and supporting High Court judgments were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283917