Whether a watchmen comes within the definition of 'worker', must depend upon the nature of his work and whether such work has any proximate relation to the manufacturing process, or the subject of the manufacturing process, does not depend on his service conditions

2) watchmen would not be regarded as workmen 

3) in case 

Watchman very comes under the definition of 'workman' and he is entitled to all the protections as provided for under section 25F, 25NN and other related provisions of ID Act in the event you retrench him or close the unit. 

False information. And if number of employee exceeds 10 in factory, he is even entitle to gratutity and PF if income less than 15k. 

As per law, have to clear his payment in 2 days + retrenchment allowance. 

Hi

Either give him proper notice period or give him proper compensation for instant termination. 

Thanks 

1. ANY person employed in a Commercial establishment is entitled to receive all types of Leave & Medical benefits, Gratuity (for over 4.6 years of service) etc....  There is no exemption to this.

- As per the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, anyone who employs any other person, for carrying out their activity, is deemed to be an industry and thus, all the labor laws apply to the person employing such other person, except for some specific exclusions made there under, for the armed forces, etc.

- Hence, a watchman come under the definition of workman under the Industrial Dispute Act.

All employees other than supervisor and managerial category shall come under workmen category .

All retirement benefits as per ID act shall be payable to him. 

Yes he is a workman

Yes, he doesn't come under ID Act. 

From examining all the facts of your query I want to say that-

These cases are very common in various courts of India and Supreme Court of India. 

As you know the concept of workman is central to the concept of an industrial dispute as an industrial dispute can be raised either by a "workman" or an "employer." Since the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act") is a piece of beneficial legislation, the courts have enlarged the scope and applicability of this Act by giving wide interpretation to the term "workman." Section 2(s) defines workman as any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work, for hire or reward, terms of employment be express or implied and includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of dispute. It excludes persons employed in army/Navy/Air Force/Police and those employed in mainly managerial or administrative, supervisory capacity and drawing wages of more than INR 6500.

The Courts have interpreted this definition and have identified various determining factors to know whether a person is "workman" or not. The factors which should be considered are 

(a) whether there is a Master-Servant relationship as held in Supreme Court case of Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1958)

(b) when a person is performing various functions which overlap in their characteristics, the nature of main function for which the claimant is employed should be considered as held in John Joseph Khokar v. Bhadange B. S. & ors 1998 (1) LLJ 447 (Bom)

(c) work is either manual, skilled, unskilled, technical operational, clerical or supervisory in nature, the mere fact that it does not fall within the exception would not render a person to be workman; and 

(d) that the exceptions are not applicable as held in Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Respondent: The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi and Anr. 

Further, designation, source of employment, method of recruitment, terms and conditions of employment/contract of service, the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment should not be considered while determining whether a person can be termed as "workman as held in Supreme Court case of Devinder Singh v Municipal Council (2011). 

I'm dealing with many such cases in Supreme Court. 

In case of Workmen of Nilgiri Cooperative Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2004) Supreme Court stated to ascertain whether the nature of activities performed by an individual impute an identity of a ‘workman’ to that individual, the Court coined the integration testing this decision. Integration test essentially answers the question whether the concerned individual has been integrated into the employer’s concern or remained independent of it. A holistic view must be taken to sift through the following questions:

(a) Who is the appointing authority?

(b) Who is the paymaster?

(c) Who can dismiss?

(d) What is the extent of control and supervision?

(e) Is there any alternative service of the employee?

(f) The nature of the work?

(g) Nature of establishment?

It can be concluded that watchmen or the driver very well fall within the ambit of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Ac, 1947.

Workforce reduction may occur for several reasons, including changes in economic markets, poor management, a scandal that affects the reputation of a company, low sales performance, and other various factors. In addition to reducing costs, workforce reduction is also used to increase earnings for a company. For example, if a staffing department hired too many employees for a particular position, the company may be spending more money than it needs to on labor costs. Thus, reductions in workforce can help the company lower costs while simultaneously enabling it to keep more of its earnings. 

Violations of workforce reduction laws are treated very seriously due to the impact that downsizing can have on a large number of employees. Thus, if a workforce reduction is not conducted properly, the employees may be able to obtain various remedies, including reinstatement to employment and compensation for lost wages. Detailed Discussion is required with complete facts. 

You may contact my secretary to connect with me for clarification. 

Gopal Verma,

Advocate-on-Record & Amicus Curiae,

Supreme Court of India

The Labour Court also relied on the presumption under Section 103 of the Act, to support its conclusion, that watchmen were workers as defined in the Act. ... The presumption under this section is that, in such circumstances, a person is employed and not that he is a worker, in the factory.

The judgment i the following case has clearly dismissed the view of the labor court stating that the watchmen do not come under the category of workmen under the provisions of labor act.

Industrial Disputes Act, the definition of 'Workman' included such person who was also performing Supervisory work provided his pay did not exceed Rs. 500/- per month. In other words if a person was getting more than Rs. 500/- yet he was not doing any supervisory work, he would still be considered as 'Workman

1. Yes Watchmen is considered as workman under Industrial dispute act.

2. You have to pay him Gratuity as he is under employment from more than 5 years.