R.M. Lodha, J.@mdashBy means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated April 29, 1987 passed by III Labour Court, Bombay, whereby the said Labour Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground that the petitioner was not a work man u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. The petitioner Shri G.M. Pillai was appointed as machine operator by respondent No. 2 herein M/s Automobile Products of India Ltd. (for short "the employer") on October 10,1959.; He was confirmed as machine operator on November 7,1960. The petitioner was promoted as Inspector, Quality Control, by the employer in the year 1974 and further promoted as Supervisor on August 17, 1979. Thereafter on November 20, 1983, the petitioner was further promoted as the Senior Supervisor and then on March 4,1985 the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent in Quality Control by the employer. The petitioner was suspended pending; domestic enquiry on January 27,1986. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that he distributed an anonymous letter in the factory. On March 5,1986, the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not paid his subsistence allowance as laid down in the certified Standing Orders applicable to the employer and accordingly he filed an application (IDA) No. 1575 of 1986 on November 27, 1986 before the Labour Court claiming the subsistence allowance due and payable to him during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings. The claim was contested by the employer on merits as well as on the ground mat the petitioner was not a workman in terms of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The employer in support of its case filed various documents to show that the petitioner was in fact working in the capacity of Supervisor and was not a workman. The petitioner initially filed his affidavit on February 19, 1987 and then he filed further affidavit on March 1, 1987. The III Labour Court after hearing the parties reached the conclusion that the petitioner was not workman and, therefore, was not entitled to any relief in the application made by him u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act vide the impugned order dated April 29,1947 giving rise to the present writ petition.
3. The only question that falls for determination in the present writ petition is : Whether the III Labour Court committed an error in holding that the petitioner was hot workman warranting interference by this Court in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. The petitioner in his application filed u/s 33-C(2) only vaguely stated that he was employed as workman in the employer company. From the perusal of the application, I find that he has not given the details of the actual duties required to be performed by him. In the written statement filed by the employer a specific defence was taken by the employer that the petitioner was not workman and, therefore, the application was not maintainable. It was Stated in the written statement that the petitioner was employed as superintendent of the quality control department and was employed in senior and responsible position. According to the employer, the petitioner was exercising supervisory control over 5 employees working under him and also executing managerial functions like passing their leave application, etc. The employer stated in the written statement that the petitioner had authority to take decision on the acceptance or otherwise of the supplies and countersign the Goods Receipts documents. These duties were stated by the employer as illustration and were not exhaustive of the supervisory functions and duties discharged by the petitioner. The employer also placed on record various leave applications of the subordinate employees granted by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed his affidavit initially on February 19,1987 and thereafter on March 1,1987. The petitioner in his affidavit stated that he was doing technical supervision and that he was inspecting quality of various products in the Quality Control Department of the company, otherwise he has no supervisory control and the head of the department is Shri Venkatachalam. The employer in support of its case examined Shri. Venkatachalam, Manager, Quality Control who was also superior of the; petitioner and one Shri Chandrakant Vichare, one of the subordinates working as B grade technical assistant under the petitioner. Shri Venkatachalam testified before the Labour Court that the petitioner were incharge of inspection activity of vendor''s components. Under the petitioner there was group of inspectors. The material received from vendors was inspected by the group of Inspectors under his control. It was the duty of the petitioner to; take decision about the acceptance or rejection of the material received from vendors after considering the inspection report submitted by group of Inspectors. Mr. Venkatachalam also deposed that if there was any complaint about; Inspector or if any Inspector had difficulty, the petitioner would personally inspect the goods on rare occasions. Shri Chandrakant Vichare, a subordinate working as B grade Technical Assistant under the petitioner deposed that the petitioner used to assign work to him as well as other various B grade Technical Assistants working in that section. He stated that B grade Technical Assistants were reporting to the petitioner as Superintendent, Quality Control and that the petitioner was supervising their work and in case there was any difficulty the petitioner was guiding them. There is material on record to show that when the petitioner himself was B grade Technical Assistant prior to his promotion, he was required to report to the then Superintendent, Quality Control Shri V.V. Mayanni, who would assign him duties. This material clearly show that B grade Technical Assistants in the employer company were required to report to the Superintendent, Quality Control and the Superintendent, Quality Control would assign duties to B grade technical assistants. It would also be relevant to mention here that in the affidavit filed by the petitioner on March 1, 1987 the petitioner admitted that he was discharging supervisory duties and that he was doing supervisory work. Though the employer has not produced the documentary evidence to show the duties required to be done by the Superintendent, Quality Control, yet on the face of the evidence of Shri Venkatachalam and Shri Vichare, it can be said that the employer was able to prove that the petitioner was discharging supervisory duties. u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act which defines workman, an employee who is employed in supervisory capacity and draws wages exceeding Rs. 1600/-per month is excluded from being workman. There is no dispute that petitioner at the relevant time was drawing wages exceeding Rs. 1600/- per month. In determining the question whether a person employed by the employer is workman u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act or not, the Court has principally to see main or substantial work for which the employee has been employed and engaged to do. Neither the designation of the employee is decisive nor any incidental work that may be done or required to be done by such employee shall get him outside the purview of workman, if the principal job and the nature of employment of such employee is manual, technical or clerical. In hierarchy of employees, some sort of supervision by the employee over the employees of lower ladder without any control may not by itself be sufficient to bring that employee in the category of Supervisor, yet if the principal job of that employee is to oversee the work of employees who are in the lower ladder of the hierarchy and he has some sort of independent discretion and judgment, obviously such employee would fall within the category of supervisor. Each case would depend on the nature of the duties predominantly or primarily , performed by such employee and whether such function was supervisory or not would have to be decided on facts keeping in mind correct principles. In John Joseph Khokar v. B. S. Bhadange and two others 1997(77) FLR 900, I observed, "Where the employee possess the power of assigning duties and distribution of work such authority of employee may be indicative of his being supervisor doing supervision. In a broad sense Supervisor is one who has authority over others : someone who superintends and directs others. An employee who in the interest of the employer has responsibility to directly control the work done by the other workers and if the work is not done correctly to guide them to do it correctly in accordance with norms shall certainly be a Supervisor. A supervisory work may be contra-distinguished from managerial and administrative work and, so also a supervisor from manager and administrator. Supervisor''s predominant function is to see that work is done by workers under him in accordance with the norms laid down by the management: he has no power to take any disciplinary action." The said observations clearly fit in the facts of the present case where the employer has been successful in proving before the Labour Court that the petitioner under him had five B grade Inspectors and the petitioner was overseeing and controlling work done by those subordinate five employees. The work of the petitioner as Superintendent, Quality Control, predominantly is to- supervise the work in the Quality Control Department of the employer. He also had powers to take independent decision about the quality control of the material received from the vendors after obtaining report from the group of Inspectors working under him. There is also evidence to the effect that the petitioner was sanctioning leave to the employees working under him. All in all, the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner was not workman cannot be said to be perverse or grossly erroneous warranting interference by this Court in extraordinary jurisdiction. The Labour Court has on consideration of the entire evidence on record reached the conclusion that the petitioner was not workman and this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction shall not, on re-appreciation of the evidence, come to the conclusion otherwise when the finding recorded by the Labour Court is supportable from the evidence on record.
5. The writ petition accordingly has no merit and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No Costs.
