- (1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel and perused the award, as also the evidence of the witnesses referred to therein, it is clear that the Labour Court has not considered all the evidence that had been placed before it before reaching the conclusion that the claimant before it was a workman and was not a supervisor.
(2.) THE tests, viz, whether the claimant had the power to grant leave to and take disciplinary action against the other workers are wrong tests applied by the Labour Court for deciding as to whether the claimant was a supervisor or a workman.
(3.) SECTION 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, defines "workman" as including persons performing supervisory work, in the category of workman. However, they are excluded from that category, if their monthly salary exceed the limit specified in that definition. The work performed by a supervisor, clearly, is different from the work performed by a Manager, Managers are excluded from the category of workmen in the definition itself. Managers, therefore, clearly form a different class. Though the work performed by supervisors and workmen may have some degree of similarity, it is not necessary that a person doing supervisory work should be found not to have been vested with managerial powers. The employer had placed before the Court the evidence of one of its officials and the claimant himself had admitted that he had been designated as supervisory that he had received salary in excess of Rs. 1,600 per month and that there were times when he was placed in full charges.;