The Supreme Court recently clarified the meaning of a 'workman'

At a glance

• In Bharti Airtel Limited v A.S. Raghavendra, the Supreme Court of India clarified the meaning of a 'workman'.
• Various underlying factors were considerd in the decision.
• The Supreme Court ruled that lacking the power to appoint, dismiss, or conduct disciplinary inquiries isn’t the sole criterion for workman status.
• The respondent was found to not be a workman. 

We would like to express gratitude to AZB & Partners for their contribution on this publication.

In Bharti Airtel Limited v A.S. Raghavendra, the Supreme Court of India examined whether the respondent was a workman, despite lacking the authority to hire, fire, and discipline employees.

The court considered various factors, including:

• the respondent’s role as ‘Regional Business Head (South) – Government Enterprise Services’;
• the terms of his appointment letter indicating managerial duties;
• the benefits he received;
• his self-description as senior management;
• his previous managerial positions; and
• his supervisory responsibilities over other managers and his team.

Criticising the lower court’s decision that the respondent was a workman, the Supreme Court stated that the absence of power to appoint, dismiss, or conduct disciplinary inquiries is not the sole criterion for determining workman status. Based on the facts, the court concluded that the respondent is not a workman entitled to protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.