counsel that at the time of termination of the employee i.e., on 08.10.2003, the statutory requirement for a person to be classified as a “workman” in the I.D. Act was a salary of not exceeding Rs.1,600/- per month. However, the High Court proceeded to apply Amendment Act 24 of 2010 which came into force with effect from 15.09.2010, wherein, the statutory requirement 9 S.K.Maini v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd, (1994) 3 SCC 510 10 Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd v. Workmen, (1970) 3 SCC 248 11 Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 12 Jasmer Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 4585 for a person employed in the supervisory capacity to be qualified as a “workman” was a salary of not exceeding Rs.10,000/- per month, and erroneously upheld the finding of the Labour Court that the employee was a “workman” as defined under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. Therefore, the learned counsel sought to allow the appeal filed by the management, by setting aside the