V.S. Deshpande, J. - (1.) What is the meaning of the word "supervisory" in the expressions "supervisory work" and "supervisory capacity "used in Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) defining the word" workman." It is this meaning which will help us to determine whether the respondent N.R. Sharma in the present writ petition was a workman employed to do any supervisory work or in a supervisory capacity by the petitioner -company on October 9, 1968 when his services were terminated by the petitioner -company
(2.) Sharma entered the service of the company in 1954 as a mechanic. On January 5, 1965 he was promoted as a supervisor and put on probation for six months with Rs. 25 per month as supervisory allowance. On June 29, 1965 he was confirmed as a supervisor and his supervisory allowance of Rs. 25 was merged in his pay. While his starting salary as a mechanic was Rs. 140 per month his starting salary as a confirmed supervisor was Rs. 360 per month. Adding to it the increments earned till 1968 and the allowances, the total emoluments of Sharma exceeded Rs. 500 per month when his services were terminated. Respondent 3 the union of the workmen of the petitioner -company raised a dispute regarding the termination of Sharma's services. When this dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Government, the petitioner -company challenged the legality of the reference on the ground that Sharma was not a workman inasmuch as he was doing supervisory work and his total emoluments exceeded. Rs. 500 per month with the result that he ceased to be a workman even though he was a workman before his emoluments exceeded Rs. 500, This contention was tried as a preliminary issue by the Labour Court. After taking documentary and oral evidence, the Labour Court gave a finding on the preliminary issue that Sharma was a workman inasmuch as his main work was that of a mechanic while the element of supervision was only incidental to his main work. It is this finding which is challenged by the company in this writ petition.
(3.) There are two ways in which the finding can be assailed in this writ petition. In so far as it is a finding of fact it may be shown that the existence of an industrial dispute was a condition precedent to the validity of the reference made by the Government to the Labour Court. An industrial dispute as defined in Sec. 2(k) could be raised only by the workmen of the company. If it related to the conditions of employment of a person who is not a workman, then the workmen raising the dispute must show that they are directly interested in the conditions of employment of such a person. If, however, Sharma is held to be a workman, then because of Sec. 2A even he alone could raise an industrial dispute, fortiori, the union could do so. In so far as the finding is on a question of law, the petitioner can succeed only if it shows that the finding is arrived at by an error of law apparent on the face of the record.;