Delhi District Court
Kunwar Pal Singh vs M/S Omaxe Ltd on 2 April, 2026
L I R 9413/16
KUNWAR PAL SINGH Vs. M/S OMAXE LTD
02.04.2026
ORDER
1. Vide order dt.01.06.2019, the following issues were framed:-
1. "Whether Sh. Kanwar Pal is a workman as per Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947"? OPW
2. Whether the services of the workman has been terminated illegally and justifiably by the management? OPW
3. Whether there exists any Industrial Dispute u/s 2 (k) of ID Act between the workman and the management? OPM
4. Whether the workman has himself abandoned his service as alleged by the management? OPM
5. Whether the workman has not completed 240 days of continuous service with the management? OPM
6. Relief.
2. Vide the same order, the issue no.1 was treated as preliminary issue and the parties were asked to lead his evidence on the preliminary issue only. The workman examined himself as WW1 and was duly cross-examined. The management examined MW1 as the sole witness and closed its evidence. Arguments have been heard on the preliminary issue.
3. Ld. AR for workman argued that the workman was initially appointed on 01.01.2003 as Project Manager and his appointment letter has been proved as Ex.WW1/A. The LIR No. 9413/16 Page No. 1 of 6 workman was not having any supervisory, administrative or managerial powers and no-one was working under him. The workman had no power to sanction a single rupee from the company's account nor he could recommend any annual increment to anyone. The workman was promoted as Chief Project Manager in 2015. The nature of duties of the workman were manual and clerical in nature though his designation was that of a Manager. The workman was responsible only for selecting and recommending the purchase of electrical goods for the various projects of the Management. However, the decision as to the vendors and as to the quantity and price was taken by the Directors. The workman was required only to find the cheap sources, price availability etc. from the market but he had no power to take any independent decision in these matters. In support of his submissions, Ld. ARW has relied on the following judicial pronouncements :-
1. Arkal Goving Raj Rao Vs. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd.
- 1958 AIR 985;
2. Shri S K Maini Vs. M/s Carona Sahu Company Ltd. & Ors. JT 1994 (3) SC 151;
3. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Trivandrum & Ors. 1958 II LLJ 722 (KER. DB)
4. Burmah-Shell Oil Company Vs. Their Workmen 1961 AIR 917, 1961 SCR (3) 669;
5. Ved Prakash Gupta Vs. M/s Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., 1984 I LLJ 546;
6. All India Reserve Bank Employees' Association & Anr. and Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Anr.- 1965 II LLJ 175;LIR No. 9413/16 Page No. 2 of 6
7. Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union Ltd. Vs. Shailesh Kumar Harshadbhai Shah-2006 6 SCC 548;
8. Tarajuli Tea Estate Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr. - on 12th September, 2000 by Hon'ble Delhi High Gauhati;
9. U.P State Sugar Cop. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Ors. - 27th October, 1989;
10. Secretary, Larambha Service Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chandra Chhuria & Anr. - 5 th February, 1998, 1999 II LLJ;
11. S.K Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra and Anr. on 02 nd September, 1983.
4. Ld. AR for the management argued that as per the resume of the workman filed in 2002 alongwith his application for employment, he was an Electrical Engineer and had worked as Supervisor and Site Incharge. The letter of appointment dt.27.01.2011 i.e. Ex.WW1/A clearly states that the workman was appointed/redesignated /promoted as Project Manager, Grade M-III. The workman was again promoted as Senior Project Manager, Grade M-IV vide letter of promotion dt.16.07.2012. He was promoted as Chief Project Manager vide letter dt.12.08.2015. His last drawn salary was Rs.75,500/-. It is submitted that the workman has although deposed that he was responsible for selecting and recommending purchase of electrical goods however, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that the Project Manager was required to take work from the labours at site, to prepare drawings, to ascertain and make list of requirements of material at site. He has also admitted that he used to give LIR No. 9413/16 Page No. 3 of 6 instructions to the labour as per drawings sent by his seniors and labours used to work below him. He has also admitted that Supervisors below him used to lookafter whether the labours were working or not at the site. It is argued that the nature of work of the workman was purely managerial in nature and not merely of a manual, clerical or technical nature. Ld. ARM has relied on the following judgments:-
1. S.K. Maini Vs. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. 1994 SCC (3) 510.
2. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court ILR 1976 Delhi 565.
3. Nitya Nand Sinha Vs. M/s HI Promoters Private Limited.
4. Shri Mamraj Vs. Management of M/s Shanti Developers & Promoters (I) Limited, 2005 (4) AD 269.
5. Lenin Kumar Ray Vs. M/s Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. 2024 INSC 802.
6. Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. A.S. Raghavendra, 2024 Legal Eagle (SC) 356.
7. Smt. N. Bhuvaneshwari Vs. The Management of M/s Ambuthirtha Power Private Limited, 2024 LLR 733 (Karnataka HC).
8. Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. and Another Vs. Shri T.S. Mokha, 2012 Legal Eagle 13704.
5. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the record. It is no longer res-integra that to decide whether a concerned employee falls within the definition of the workman or not, the court has to go beyond the nomenclature of the designation and it should be examined LIR No. 9413/16 Page No. 4 of 6 as to what is the dominant nature of the duties performed by him. The principal nature of duties and functions being performed by the workman is the determining factor. In S K Maini Vs. Carona Sahu case, 1994 AIR 1824 (as relied by the AR for the workman), the Honb'le Apex Court held that the determinative factor is the main duties of the employee concerned and not some works, incidentally done. If the employee is mainly doing the supervisory work but incidentally or for a fraction of time does some manual or clerical work, the employee should be held to be doing supervisory work. Conversely, if the main work is of manual, clerical or technical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory or other work is also done by the employee incidently or for only a small fraction of working time is devoted to supervisory work, the employee will come within the purview of 'workman' as defined in Section 2 (s) of the ID Act. These principles have been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lenin Kumar Ray Vs. Express Publication Ltd. SLP (C) 5660 of 2023, decision dt.21.10.2024. In Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. A S Raghavendra, 2024 (6) SCC 418, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para 25 that mere absence of power to appoint, dismiss or conduct disciplinary inquiries against other employees would not and could not be the sole criterion to determine the issue that the employee is a 'workman' or not.
6. The burden was on the workman to prove that the dominant nature of his duties was manual, clerical or technical. The workman has simply deposed that the nature of the duties was manual and clerical, but beyond this, he has not LIR No. 9413/16 Page No. 5 of 6 elaborated as to what manual or clerical work, he was performing. During his cross-examination, he stated that as Project Manager, he was required to take work from labours at site, prepare drawing and make list of requirement of the material at site. He also used to give instructions to the labour as per the drawings sent by his seniors. He also stated that besides the labours, he had one or more supervisors under him. The workman was promoted as Senior Project Manager in 2012 and he became Chief Project Manager in 2015. In my considered opinion, the nature of duties of the workman herein was mainly managerial and by no stretch of imagination, such duties can be treated as merely technical or clerical let alone manual.
7. After going through the evidence of the parties, I have no hesitation in holding that the workman/claimant does not fall within the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The preliminary issue under consideration is accordingly decided against the workman.
8. Since the claimant is not a 'workman', the dispute between him and the management falls short of being an 'industrial dispute' under Section 2(k) of the ID Act. Consequently, the claim of the workman is liable to be rejected. The claim of the workman is accordingly rejected. Award is accordingly passed. The reference stands answered Digitally signed accordingly. NEERAJ by NEERAJ GAUR GAUR Date: 2026.04.02 16:40:57 +0530 (NEERAJ GAUR) Presiding Officer Labour Court-1 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi 02.04.2026 LIR No. 9413/16 Page No. 6 of 6