Introduction :
Since the dawn of industrial age in the wake of industrial revolution which sprang up in England in the 18th century, the core unit of this whole operation has been its tiniest unit. It bears the whole burden of the whole industrialisation effort and is unsung. The unit in question being the humble workman or worker. In the common person’s eyes a workman or worker is a person who does labour for money in any industry, mostly covering the blue collar workers but more often than not they also cover white collar workers as well. Such is the nature of general definitions but laws treat it a bit differently than the general perception, in its (Industrial Disputes Act, 1974) eyes a workman or a worker is defined as follows –
“S2 (s) – “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied … ” (Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India)
So what does it mean? To simplify any person who is employed in an “industry” in any capacity barring managerial or administrative work is a workman in the industry. This oversimplification and even the definition of workman often raises questions.
Questions such as how does a workman fit in today’s freelancing world ? To what extent does a person working under an industry be called a workman where the structure of industry in today’s age is being heavily corporatised rapidly ? These questions stems from the limited scope of this definition and also its antiquated stand on the workforce. To answer these questions we have to see and compare the definition of a worker and an employee which is strewn across multiple indian labour law.
“Workman” : Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 :
The humble workman defined in the Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 is a person who is engaged in any kind of “manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work” (Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India) for hire and reward. In its scope there are more advanced terms which are attributed to the base workman but is out of scope for this discussion but there are 2 out of 4 bars which is quite relevant. One bar states that if a person is employed in a position of managerial or administrative capacity is not a workman and the other states that if a person is employed in a supervisory role collects wages upwards of sixteen hundred rupees per month then he no longer remains a workman or if the person exercises powers mainly of a managerial nature then he is not a workman. This greatly narrows the scope for workman to be defined but some times clumsily given job titles often make things interesting. There are some cases which demonstrate the same. The case being of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. State of Bihar where an employee at the position of head clerk under the office of divisional manager was deemed not to be a workman due to his position under a specific department but the court held that the classification is bogus as the person is question is doing a clerical job under a managerial department which doesn’t mean that the person in question is a manager but is only a clerk as his job title states. Similarly puzzling case is of Ved Prakash Gupta v. Messers Detton Cables (P) Ltd.
Where the appallent was employed as security inspector which on paper sounds quite managerial post but the Court held otherwise.
Such incidents and wording in the act makes it hard to be deviated from the word yet there are quite a lot of things in it. Such as what happens if the person is an independent contractor, the law on it is clear as to saying that only the work done for a party by a party is not enough but there should be employment of the party. It was held in the case of Dharangdhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra and ors.
Now moving on to other renditions of the workman in other laws.
“Employee” : The Minimum Wages Act,1984 :
The employee in the Minimum Wages act is defined in the Section 2 (i) of the statute where it is defined as a person employed for hire or reward to do skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical work for wages. This definition is quite similar to the definition in the ID Act but there is a great difference that the nature of employment in this act is fixed as in only scheduled employees shall be recognised where as in ID Act there was no concept of scheduled employment as it covered all the industries. But there is no thing of note else.
Workers : Then and Now :
The older definition of worker or employee is discussed here through the lens of the most influential laws in place today which in its core essence is that any sort of work which is done in a predefined manner in a predefined space with a well distinguished job title by any one and that any one would then be called an worker or employee. But in today’s world many things such as free lancing and contract work is quite expanded in these days then how could we actually keep track of who is a worker or not. Such questions become relevant. If we see new amendments we see a radical change in approach as along side workers there are several new categories are made especially in the Code for social security, where workers are divided into 5 categories which are now recognised such as gig workers(S 2(35)), home-base worker (S 2(36)), Platform workers (s 2(61)), Self employed workers(s 2(75)), unorganised worker(s 2(86)). The major difference in the old definition and the new definitions is the nature of work they are performing. In the newer definitions each category has a very specific set of work where as in the older statutes the work was a bit diverse. The relation between employer and employee is diluted to such an extent that it is often missing in this rendition of worker,s definitions. In the older definitions the focus was on the parties it self and their identity but now it is shifted on the nature of work or service they provide as there is no clear hierarchy.
Conclusion :
The humble worker is still the basic unit of the heart of industry but yet its dimensions have changed since 1947. in the very nascency of worker rights it was more about to control the worker and keep a tight hierarchy where the integrated system works almost like clockwork to keep production high and breakdowns low which still exists in many industries but if we take a hard look on today’s dimensions it is more about inclusivity and service orientation which was in the wake of rapid globalisation and a inflow of new sources of work where a person doesn’t have to stick to a system and can provide a similar service to a larger number of clients without compromising either his quality or freedom. Now the worker is freer then ever.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 11 Mar. 1947, www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/11102/1/industrial-disputes-act-1947.pdf. Accessed 22 Apr. 2023.
Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. State of Bihar {AIR 1970 SC 1217}
Ved Prakash Gupta v. Messers Detton Cables (P) Ltd.{ (1984) I LLJ 546}
Dharangdhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra and ors.{ AIR 1956 SC 264}
Author Bio
