Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Also known as ID Act.
About the ID Act
Whether an employee is a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 depends on the main work assigned to him, not on his designation, and incidental manual work does not change it (Pushkarlal v. Administrative Officer, Maharana Pratap Smarak, paras 13-14). A workman alleging illegal retrenchment must prove that he was employed and that he worked 240 days in the 12 months before termination (Girraj Prasad Sharma v. Library Officer, 2026:RJ-JP:40283, paras 15-20). No limitation period is prescribed for raising an industrial dispute, but stale claims ought not to be entertained without a satisfactory explanation for the delay (Ashok Kumar Mahawar v. CMHO, Dausa, 2026:RJ-JP:42436, paras 5-8).
Key Judgments
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition by a former part-time Class-IV employee against a Labour Court award rejecting his claim and the order refusing to recall it (paras 1, 9). No limitation period applies to raising an industrial dispute, but stale claims ought not to be entertained without a satisfactory explanation; he raised his dispute ten years after his 1994 termination and explained nothing (paras 5, 7).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a Labour Court award reinstating a dairy workman removed in 1991 over the alleged theft of 25 tins of ghee. Although the domestic inquiry had been held fair, the inquiry officer's findings rested on no legal evidence and were perverse, so the Labour Court rightly interfered (paras 24-25). The employer's writ petition was dismissed and the workman's allowed to the extent of 50% of the back wages (paras 30-32).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a Manager (Operations) whose duties were managerial, including control over vendor selection and the business affairs of his area, was not an 'employee' under Section 2(5) of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (para 16). The authority under Section 28A therefore had no jurisdiction to set aside his dismissal and order reinstatement; its order was quashed, leaving him free to pursue other remedies (paras 17-18).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition against a Labour Court award holding that no employer–employee relationship existed between a claimed Computer Operator and the Library Officer of Govind Ballabh Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur (paras 1, 24). With no appointment letter, attendance register or retrenchment order, an isolated payment document and an experience-cum-attendance certificate did not discharge the workman's burden of proving employment and 240 days' service needed to invoke Section 25-F (paras 17-20).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur held that a pujari appointed to perform sewa puja in a temple is not a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Designation is not conclusive; the test is the main work assigned, and incidental manual work does not change it (paras 13-14). The intra-court appeal was dismissed in limine (para 17).