Dear Professionals, Can the dispute be raised by any employee, say managerial category or above before the Govt bodies for dismissal etc., Pls enlighten me on this. Regards, Madhan S
From India, Madras
3From India, Madras
Please provide additional information on this issue, so that members can make informed comments.
From Australia, Melbourne
From Australia, Melbourne
Dear Madan,
Basically, employment is a contract of Civil nature between two parties viz., the employer and the employee. Therefore it is covered by the Law relating to contracts. Thus any difference or dispute between the employer and the employee regarding any terms and conditions of service contained therein the contract of employment is a Civil dispute only cognizable by a Civil Court.
But Indian Labor Laws generally classify the employees into two major groups viz., workmen and supervisory/managerial Cadre employees. Of these two groups, only an employee belonging to the Cadre of workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has the right to raise a dispute under the Act against his employer on his discharge, dismissal or retrenchment which would be finally adjudicated by a Labor Court constituted under the Act.
Therefore, any employee belonging to the managerial Cadre cannot raise any dispute under the ID Act,1947 for his employment grievances including dismissal. But mere designation cannot be a determinant for deciding the question. The nature of duties attached to the post alone can determine the fact whether one is a workman or otherwise.
From India, Salem
Basically, employment is a contract of Civil nature between two parties viz., the employer and the employee. Therefore it is covered by the Law relating to contracts. Thus any difference or dispute between the employer and the employee regarding any terms and conditions of service contained therein the contract of employment is a Civil dispute only cognizable by a Civil Court.
But Indian Labor Laws generally classify the employees into two major groups viz., workmen and supervisory/managerial Cadre employees. Of these two groups, only an employee belonging to the Cadre of workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has the right to raise a dispute under the Act against his employer on his discharge, dismissal or retrenchment which would be finally adjudicated by a Labor Court constituted under the Act.
Therefore, any employee belonging to the managerial Cadre cannot raise any dispute under the ID Act,1947 for his employment grievances including dismissal. But mere designation cannot be a determinant for deciding the question. The nature of duties attached to the post alone can determine the fact whether one is a workman or otherwise.
From India, Salem
Respected sir, Thank you for the clarification. Can you also pls tell what natures of duty refrain him from raising the dispute? Is the salary limit of the concerned play vital role in deciding this.
Regards,
Madhan S
From India, Madras
Regards,
Madhan S
From India, Madras
Dear Madan,
A definition is a precise indication of certain basic and predominent features of the subject which is defined. Exact meaning of the definition should always be culled out from the main objective of the particular Law wherein the term is defined and thus it cannot be a mere generalization based on the language used.
If we analyze the term ' workman ' as defined u/s 2(s) of the IDA, 1947 in this back drop, we should bear in mind that whatever the conclusive interpretation of the term we arrive at, it should be with reference to the purpose of the Act which are the prevention, investigation and peaceful and early resolution of industrial disputes involving employment grievances of a certain section of hired employees in the Cadre of workman and not all. That's why the definition u/s 2(s) comprises of three distinct parts viz., (1) the inclusive part
(2) the exclusive part and
(3) the exemption part
The inclusive part deals with the nature of work that can be manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory. In short, the terms used here here reflect the repetitive nature of the job sans the freedom to use own imagination or independent judgement in its normal execution.
The exclusive part operates primarily on the capacity of employment viz., managerial or administrative or supervisory. Only supervisory capacity is qualified with monthly salary exceeding a certain limit. So far as managerial or administrative capacity is concerned salary is not a defining criterion. These two terms carry with them the inherent power of situational decision making, control, vertical and horizontal communications, entering into contracts with the world at large on behalf of the organization, the power to sue and be sued, accountability, power to hire or fire and the like. It is not necessary that a manager should possess all the powers mentioned above in view of the phenomenon of specialization in modern management systems.
As the third part is self-explanatory, I prefer to leave it out.
Finally, to be a 'workman', one has to prove that his nature of work falls essentially within the aspects mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition.
Therefore, my final answer to your query is that salary is not a criterion for a workman or manager.
From India, Salem
A definition is a precise indication of certain basic and predominent features of the subject which is defined. Exact meaning of the definition should always be culled out from the main objective of the particular Law wherein the term is defined and thus it cannot be a mere generalization based on the language used.
If we analyze the term ' workman ' as defined u/s 2(s) of the IDA, 1947 in this back drop, we should bear in mind that whatever the conclusive interpretation of the term we arrive at, it should be with reference to the purpose of the Act which are the prevention, investigation and peaceful and early resolution of industrial disputes involving employment grievances of a certain section of hired employees in the Cadre of workman and not all. That's why the definition u/s 2(s) comprises of three distinct parts viz., (1) the inclusive part
(2) the exclusive part and
(3) the exemption part
The inclusive part deals with the nature of work that can be manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory. In short, the terms used here here reflect the repetitive nature of the job sans the freedom to use own imagination or independent judgement in its normal execution.
The exclusive part operates primarily on the capacity of employment viz., managerial or administrative or supervisory. Only supervisory capacity is qualified with monthly salary exceeding a certain limit. So far as managerial or administrative capacity is concerned salary is not a defining criterion. These two terms carry with them the inherent power of situational decision making, control, vertical and horizontal communications, entering into contracts with the world at large on behalf of the organization, the power to sue and be sued, accountability, power to hire or fire and the like. It is not necessary that a manager should possess all the powers mentioned above in view of the phenomenon of specialization in modern management systems.
As the third part is self-explanatory, I prefer to leave it out.
Finally, to be a 'workman', one has to prove that his nature of work falls essentially within the aspects mentioned in the inclusive part of the definition.
Therefore, my final answer to your query is that salary is not a criterion for a workman or manager.
From India, Salem
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
365-Ways to Raise Confident Kids.pdf
Salary Raise Request.doc
Managing the boss- how to ask for a raise.ppt