Dominant nature of actual duties, not designation or incidental supervision, determines "workman" status under Section 2(s).

The deceased employee, Nimesh Vinubhai Bhatt, was appointed as a Shift Engineer/Supervisor by the petitioner-employer on December 26, 2005

On September 13, 2016, his services were terminated via a communication without notice or compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

The employee raised an industrial dispute; however, he passed away on May 30, 2020, during the proceedings, and his widow was impleaded as his legal heir

The Labour Court, Vadodara, allowed the reference on April 18, 2022, holding the termination illegal and awarding full back wages from the date of termination until the employee's death

The employer challenged this, contending the deceased was not a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Act because he performed supervisory duties and earned a salary of ₹26,451/-

1. Whether the deceased employee falls within the definition of a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or is excluded due to the nature of his supervisory/administrative roles

2. Whether the termination of the employee was in violation of the statutory requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and the terms of the appointment letter

The court applied Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which defines "workman" and excludes those employed in mainly managerial or administrative capacities, or those in supervisory roles earning above a specific threshold

It relied on the "Dominant Nature Test" established in Srinibas Goradia v. Arvind Kumar Sahu [2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 76306], asserting that actual duties, not nomenclature or designation, determine status

The court also distinguished Lenin Kumar Ray v. M/s. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. [AIR 2024 SC 5409], noting that in the absence of evidence of independent authority, an employee remains a workman

Section 25F of the Act regarding conditions precedent to retrenchment was applied

The court examined the appointment letter’s "Roles and Responsibilities," finding that the deceased was required to follow management instructions rather than exercise independent commanding power

Although the employee admitted to "supervising" workers and preparing reports in cross-examination, the court held these were "incidental trappings" of technical/manual duties rather than managerial functions

The court observed that the petitioner failed to prove the employee had the authority to hire, fire, or grant leave

Applying the "acid test" of dominant nature, the court concluded his role was primarily technical/operational

Regarding the termination, the court noted that the employer failed to provide notice or compensation as required by Section 25F and violated Clause 19.2 of the appointment letter, which required specific grounds like fraud or dishonesty for summary dismissal

The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Labour Court’s award. The petitioner is directed to pay full back wages to the respondent (widow) from September 30, 2016, until the date of the employee's death (May 30, 2020) within six weeks