Introduction
The scope of the definition of “workman” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) has been the subject of sustained judicial scrutiny, particularly in cases involving highly skilled and specialised professionals. The Delhi High Court’s decision in King Airways v. Captain Pritam Singh (11 December 2025) represents a significant contribution to this jurisprudence by addressing whether airline pilots, including those designated as Pilot-in-Command, fall within the protective ambit of labour legislation. The judgment is notable for its rejection of designation-based and salary-centric exclusions and for reaffirming the predominance test as the controlling principle in determining workman status.
Factual Matrix
The respondents, Captain Pritam Singh, Captain Manjit Singh, and N.D. Kathuria, were employed as pilots by King Airways. Disputes arose when the employer allegedly withheld salaries, incentives for extra flying hours, and other contractual dues. The pilots approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Delhi, under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act seeking recovery of unpaid amounts.
The Tribunal, by orders dated 14 September 2009, allowed the claims and held that the pilots were “workmen” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act. King Airways challenged these awards before the Delhi High Court. A Single Judge upheld the Tribunal’s findings by judgment dated 12 February 2013. Aggrieved, the employer filed Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs 141/2013, 142/2013, and 143/2013).
In a connected proceeding concerning Captain Pritam Singh, another Single Judge set aside a Tribunal award and remanded the matter on the ground that the issue of “workman” status required fresh adjudication, leading to LPA 618/2015. All appeals were heard together and decided by a common judgment.
Issues Before the Court
The principal legal issues before the Division Bench were:
- Whether airline pilots, including Pilot-in-Command, qualify as “workmen” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act?
- Whether pilots perform supervisory or managerial functions attracting the exclusion under Section 2(s)(iv)?
- Whether high remuneration alone is sufficient to exclude an employee from the definition of “workman”?
- Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act?
- Whether reinstatement with back wages was legally justified?
Arguments of the Employer
King Airways argued that pilots, particularly those designated as Pilot-in-Command, discharge supervisory functions by virtue of Rule 141 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, which requires the Pilot-in-Command to “supervise and direct” crew members. It was contended that such supervision, coupled with the high salary drawn by the pilots, placed them squarely within the exclusion under Section 2(s)(iv) of the ID Act.
The employer further submitted that Captain Pritam Singh performed additional duties as an Examiner, evaluating other pilots, thereby exercising supervisory and evaluative authority. On the issue of back wages, reliance was placed on Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, to argue that back wages are not automatic and must be supported by pleadings and proof of lack of gainful employment.
Arguments of the Pilots
The pilots contended that the decisive factor under Section 2(s) is the predominant nature of duties performed. Their principal function was to fly the aircraft, which constitutes skilled and technical work expressly included within the statutory definition of “workman”. Any supervision of crew members was incidental and limited to ensuring flight safety, not industrial supervision in the managerial sense.
It was further argued that the Aircraft Rules are safety-oriented regulations and cannot be determinative of labour law classification. Organisational documents demonstrated that administrative and disciplinary control over crew members rested with Operations Managers, not pilots. Salary, it was submitted, becomes relevant only after supervisory functions are established, which the employer had failed to prove.
Judicial Reasoning
The Division Bench adopted a welfare-oriented and purposive interpretation of Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Relying on settled precedent, the Court reiterated that designation and salary are not determinative; rather, the predominant nature of duties performed must guide the inquiry.
Interpretation of Supervisory Functions
The Court carefully examined Rule 141 of the Aircraft Rules and held that the term “supervise” therein is context-specific, aimed at ensuring flight safety and discipline. Such supervision, the Court observed, cannot be equated with supervisory employment under labour law, which ordinarily involves powers of appointment, disciplinary control, performance appraisal, or managerial decision-making.
Salary Not a Standalone Exclusion
Significantly, the Court rejected the employer’s reliance on salary as a standalone exclusionary factor. It clarified that the wage threshold under Section 2(s)(iv) becomes relevant only where supervisory employment is first established. In the absence of proof that pilots exercised industrial supervisory powers, salary was held to be immaterial.
Jurisdiction Under Section 33-C(2)
On the issue of jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2), the Court held that once the pilots were found to be workmen, the Tribunal was competent to entertain their claims for recovery of dues.
Back Wages and Natural Justice
Regarding back wages, the Court found that the termination was illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. Applying Deepali Gundu Surwase, the Court held that reinstatement with back wages is the normal rule in cases of wrongful termination, particularly where the employer is the wrongdoer and the employee is the sufferer.
Finality of Prior Determination
The remand ordered in LPA 618/2015 was set aside on the ground that the issue of pilots being workmen had already been conclusively determined in earlier proceedings and could not be reopened.
Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed LPAs 141/2013, 142/2013, and 143/2013, affirming the findings of the Industrial Tribunal and the Single Judge that airline pilots are “workmen” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. LPA 618/2015 was allowed, and the remand order was set aside. No order as to costs was passed.
Critical Analysis and Significance
This judgment is significant for three reasons:
- It reinforces the predominance test as the cornerstone of workman classification, preventing employers from relying on nomenclature or high remuneration to evade labour law obligations.
- It draws a clear doctrinal distinction between safety-based command under regulatory frameworks and supervisory employment under labour law.
- It strengthens the remedial framework of the ID Act by reaffirming reinstatement with back wages as the norm in cases of illegal termination.
In the broader context of evolving employment structures and increasing professionalisation of labour, King Airways v. Captain Pritam Singh serves as a reminder that welfare legislation must be interpreted in light of actual work performed, not perceived status or economic standing.
