Comparative juridical scope of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act and the CLRA Act

While the definition of "workman" under Section 2(1)(i) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is textually modeled on Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, both provisions diverge fundamentally in their juridical architecture and regulatory objectives. The Industrial Disputes Act adopts an expansive definition that explicitly encompasses dismissed, discharged, or retrenched employees to ensure they maintain standing to agitate the illegality of their termination, and evaluates employment relationships through the flexible common law doctrine of direct control and supervision. By contrast, the CLRA definition operates exclusively within a regulated tripartite framework where workers are hired by or through a contractor for the principal employer's establishment, omits any extended scope for terminated personnel, and incorporates a categorical statutory exclusion for out-workers whose work is performed outside premises controlled by the principal employer. (M/S Premium Transmission Private Limited Vs Kishan Subhash Rathod and Others | 2026 INSC 122).