The case originated from a writ petition filed by M/s. Express Publications against an award issued by the Labour Court of Bhubaneswar. The employee, initially appointed as a Junior Engineer in June 1997, had progressed to the role of Assistant Engineer by May 2001. However, he was relieved from service on October 8, 2003, receiving a month's salary in lieu of notice. This termination prompted the employee to seek redress, leading to a Labour Court award that reinstated him with compensation for back wages.

Dissatisfied with the award, the management approached the High Court, which upheld the Labour Court's finding that the employee was a "workman" under the I.D. Act but set aside the reinstatement order and compensation directive. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court.

The employee’s counsel argued that his termination was unlawful, emphasizing that he had not been given any prior notice or opportunity to contest his dismissal. He asserted that he was indeed a "workman" as defined by the I.D. Act, and cited precedents indicating that even supervisory roles could fall under this definition based on the nature of duties performed rather than mere job titles.

Conversely, the management contended that the employee's role involved supervisory functions and that he was compensated above the threshold set for defining "workman." They claimed that the High Court’s reliance on a post-amendment interpretation of the I.D. Act was erroneous, given the employee's termination date predating the amendment.

The Supreme Court critically assessed the definition of "workman" under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, which states that a "workman" includes individuals performing various types of work, including supervisory roles, but excludes those in managerial capacities or earning above specified salary limits.

The Court noted that the employee, despite asserting he was not in an executive position, had admitted to supervising junior engineers, which indicated a supervisory role. Given that his salary exceeded the statutory limit of ?1,600 per month at the time of termination, the Court ruled that he did not qualify as a "workman" under the I.D. Act.

The Court also clarified that the management had adhered to the stipulated contractual procedures in terminating the employee’s services, thereby affirming that the termination was lawful. It further reinforced that the provisions of the I.D. Act were not applicable, thus invalidating the Labour Court's orders for reinstatement and compensation.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's ruling underscores the importance of accurately defining the roles of employees within the context of employment law. The distinction between "workman" and non-workman categories has significant implications for labor rights and management practices. The judgment not only resolves the immediate dispute but also contributes to the broader legal discourse on employment relationships in India.

As such, both the appeal by the employee was dismissed, while the management’s appeal was allowed, setting a precedent for future cases involving similar disputes over employment definitions and termination procedures.