Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distribution ... vs Burmah Shell Management Staff ... on 12 November, 1970
In Burmah Shell Co. v. Burmah Shell Management Staff Association 1970-II L.L.J. 590 dealing with the same question as to whether an employee was a workman or not the Supreme Court observed:
Section 33C in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Muthayyan vs Manager, Kadalur Estate on 13 July, 1981
10. The word "manual" has different dictionary meanings: one of them, of course, is 'done, or worked, or used by hand" which has ' been adopted by Khalid J., in his judgment reported in Muthayyan v. Manager, Kadalur Estate, (supra). Oxford Dictionary defines the same term variously as meaning "pertaining to or done with hands" "now especially of (physical) labour". Judicial decisions pertaining to the term and referred to in Judicial Dictionary by Stroud (Fourth Edition) adopts various meanings like "work which involves physical exertion rather than intellectual exertion", "work involving strains of the muscles" and "that which tests a man's muscles and sinews" etc. "Words and Phrases Legally Defined" by John B. Saunders (Second Edition) catalogues decisions which adopt the narrow construction "labour performed by hand" to those which refer to "exercise of sinews and muscles of the limbs wielding the hammer or pickaxe or shouldering heavy loads". Black's Law Dictionary (4th Edition) defines "manual labour" as "work done with hand", "labour performed by hand or by exercise of physical force, with or without the aid of tools, machinery or equipment, but depending for its effectiveness chiefly upon personal muscular exertion rather than upon skill, intelligence or adroitness". We feel that we shall not adopt the narrowest dictionary meaning of "manual work" but should adopt the wider meaning as comprehending all work involving physical force and depending chiefly upon personal muscular exertions rather than upon exertion of intelligence. In the setting in which it is used in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, apparently to contra-distinguish clerical, supervisory and technical avocations, we are inclined to hold that the meaning to be given to the term "manual work" is the wider meaning viz., any form of physical labour depending chiefly on personal muscular exertion as distinct from those involving predominantly intellectual, innovative, imaginative or creative faculties. In case if the restricted meaning is accepted, a watchman who is engaged in a work which is mechanical and repetitive and a process involving only physical exertion, but which has to be done by foot, or a head load worker who uses his head and shoulders more than his hands may not be engaged in manual work. Again, an artist who has to use creative and imaginative faculties to paint pictures will nevertheless be a manual worker, because he works with his hand. Likewise, a surgeon whose work is manual, and strenuous at that may be a workman even though he is employing his intelligence, expertise and accumulated skills of a totally non-physical character in performing an operation.
The Navy Act, 1957
Section 2 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Army Act, 1950
The Air Force Act, 1950
South Indian Bank Ltd vs A.R. Chacko on 2 December, 1963
It is also not disputed that the predominant nature of the work of the person employed shall be determinative of the question whether he is employed to do any manual, or supervisory or technical or clerical work in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in South Indian Bank v. A.R. Chacko , May & Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen , Ananda Bazar Patrika v. Its workmen 1969-II L.L.J. 670 and Burmah Shell Oil Storage v. Burmah Shell Management . It is also submitted by counsel for the appellants that the work of teaching may not be supervisory, or technical or clerical; and we need consider only whether it is skilled or unskilled manual work.