R.N.Mittal, J. - (1.) BRIEFLY , the case of the Petitioner is that Chamkaur Singh, Respondent No. 3 was initially appointed as an accounts clerk in the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) vide order dated April (sic), 19(sic)6 (copy Annexure P1). He was promoted as Warehouse Manager vide order dated August 4, 1973 (Annexure P 2). Later his service were terminated as per order dated November 12, 19(sic)7 with immediate effect. The said Respondent requested the Government that as his services had been illegally terminated, therefore, a reference be made to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), The Government referred the following point for adjudication under the aforesaid section to the Labour Court: - Whether termination of services of Shri Chamkaur Singh, workman, is justified and in order ? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed statement of claim before the Labour Court. The Petitioner in the written statement denied that he was a workman. One of the issues framed by the Labour Court was as to whether Chamkaur Singh was not a workman. After recording evidence, it held that he was a workman. The award of the Labour Court dated December 22, 1979 is Annexure P5. The Petitioner has challenged the said award through this petition. The only question that arises for determination in the writ petition is as to whether Respondent No. 3 is a workman, or not. In order to determine the question, it will be relevant to refer to the definition of 'workman' as given in Section 2(s) in the Act which reads as follows: - Section 2(s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any person who has been dismissed discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person - (i) - - (ii) - - (iii) - - (iv) who being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercise, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature. From a reading of the definition, it is evident that if a person, who is working in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercises duties mainly of managerial nature, will not fall within the definition of a workman'. The section has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, in All India Reserve Bank Employees Association and Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India 1, wherein Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was), speaking for the Court observed that the definition of workman in Section 2(s), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, includes inter alia an employee employed as a supervisor. There are only two circumstances in which such a person ceases to be a workman. One is when he draws wages in excess of Rs. 500/ - per month and the other is when he performs managerial functions by reason of a power vested in him or by the nature of duties attached to his office. The question whether a particular workman is a supervisor within or without the definition of workman is ultimately one of fact, at best one of mixed fact and law. The question will really depend upon the nature of the industry, the type of work in which he is engaged, the organisational set up of the particular unit of industry and like factor. The work in a Bank involves layer upon layer of checkers and checking is hardly supervision. The learned Judge further observed that where there is a power of assigning duties and distribution of work, there is supervision. Similarly, it was observed in Ananda Bazar Patrika (Private) Ltd. v. Its Workmen 2, that if a person is mainly doing supervisory work, but incidentally or for a fraction of that time, also does some clerical work, it would have to be held that he is employed in supervisory capacity and conversely if the main work done is of clerical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory duties are also carried out incidentally, or as a small fraction of work done by him, will not convert his employment as a clerk into one in supervisory capacity.
(3.) IN view of the above observations, it is now to be seen as to whether the duties assigned to Respondent No. 3 make him a workman, or not. It is not disputed that the duties and responsibilities of a Manager of a Ware -house are given in Annexure P4, the relevant extract of which is as follows: - Warehouse Manager. (1) Overall administration of the Warehouse. (2) To attend to propaganda and publicity. (3) To act as liaison between customers and banks. (4) To receive and issue custom. Dusting Operators. To undertake disinfestations operation and other office as per directions of the Warehouse Manager, Watchman For watch and ward duty and also to attend to office work as per directions of the Warehouse Manager. The Warehouse Manager can in time of need, assign any duty to any of the subordinate staff working under him, in the best interest of the Warehouse,;