High Salary Does Not Exclude Employees from Labour Laws: Delhi High Court on Workman Status

A recent judgment of the Delhi High Court has provided important clarity on the scope of labour law protections and has direct relevance for employees in the IT and technology sector.

In King Airways vs Captain Pritam Singh, along with connected matters, the Delhi High Court was dealing with long pending disputes between King Airways and its pilots relating to non payment of salary, incentives for additional flying hours and other service related dues. The pilots had approached the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking recovery of their unpaid wages and benefits.

The airline resisted these claims by challenging the very jurisdiction of the Labour Court. King Airways argued that its pilots were not workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. According to the airline, the pilots were holding senior positions such as Pilot in Command and Senior Commander, were drawing very high salaries and were responsible for supervising crew members. On this basis, the company contended that labour laws were not applicable to them.

The Labour Court rejected this defence and held that the pilots were workmen and were entitled to seek relief under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court found that the salary and incentives had been wrongfully withheld and passed orders in favour of the pilots. These findings were upheld by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court.

King Airways carried the matter further in appeal before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. One of the central arguments raised again was that pilots exercise supervisory control over the crew and therefore fall outside the definition of workman, particularly because their salary exceeded the statutory threshold applicable to supervisory employees.

The Delhi High Court examined this contention in detail. The Court analysed the Aircraft Rules, the role of a Pilot in Command, the operational manuals of the airline and several earlier judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Court observed that while aviation regulations may use the term supervise, such supervision is limited to ensuring flight safety and discipline during the operation of the aircraft. It does not amount to supervisory or managerial control in the industrial or administrative sense contemplated under labour law.

The Court emphasised that the predominant and substantive duty of a pilot is to fly the aircraft. This work is highly skilled and technical in nature. Any incidental instructions given to crew members during a flight cannot change the essential character of the employment. The Court also noted that there was no material to show that pilots had the authority to hire, fire, discipline or manage the service conditions of the crew, which are classic indicators of managerial or supervisory roles.

A key aspect of the judgment is the Court’s treatment of salary. The airline had strongly relied on the fact that the pilots were drawing salaries far above the statutory threshold. The Court categorically held that salary becomes relevant only after it is established that the employee is employed in a supervisory capacity. High remuneration by itself cannot determine whether a person is a workman. The Court described the salary argument as a red herring and held that it cannot be used to deny labour law protection.

In one of the connected appeals, the Court also dealt with the issue of illegal termination and back wages. It was noted that the termination of a pilot had taken place without following principles of natural justice and was triggered by his demand for unpaid salary. The Court upheld the Labour Court’s finding that such termination was patently illegal and affirmed the grant of back wages.

Ultimately, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals filed by King Airways and confirmed that pilots are workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court reinforced the principle that beneficial labour legislation must be interpreted in a purposive manner and that real work performed must prevail over contractual labels and designations.

This judgment has strong parallels in the IT sector.

In technology companies, employees are frequently given senior sounding designations and high compensation packages while their core work remains technical and execution oriented. Many continue to write code, resolve production issues, perform system maintenance, manage deployments and deliver technical outcomes without exercising real managerial authority. Despite this, when disputes arise, they are often told that labour laws do not apply to them.

Due to lack of legal awareness, many IT employees accept illegal termination, forced resignation, non payment of dues or unfair practices without challenge. There is a deeply rooted myth in the IT sector that labour laws are meant only for low paid or blue collar workers. This judgment clearly demonstrates that such assumptions are legally incorrect.

The Industrial Disputes Act is a protective legislation intended to prevent arbitrary action by employers. Employees who qualify as workmen have access to specialised forums such as Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals, where remedies like reinstatement, back wages and compensation are available.

Courts have repeatedly held that employment rights cannot be taken away by inflated titles, sophisticated contracts or high salaries. What matters is the substance of the role and the actual duties performed on a daily basis.

The Delhi High Court judgment is a reminder that awareness of labour laws is essential, particularly in sectors like IT where misinformation often discourages employees from asserting their rights. It reinforces the principle that labour law protection extends to all employees who meet the statutory criteria, regardless of how modern or high paying the industry may be.

At NITES Legal, we continue to see cases where IT employees suffer due to lack of awareness and misplaced beliefs about labour law applicability. This judgment strengthens the legal position of such employees and underlines the importance of informed action when faced with workplace injustice.

Substance will always prevail over form in employment law.