Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This petition by the petitioner workman challenges the impugned Award dated 6th March, 2000, by the Labour Court, respondent No. 4. The impugned award was upon the reference made at the behest of the petitioner and arose from the averred termination of the petitioner's services by the respondent No. 1 on 6th June, 1998. The impugned award has declined to adjudicate on the referred dispute on merits on the ground that the claimant/workman petitioner herein, who was drawing Rs. 1,800/- per month and working as a supervisor was beyond the definition of a workman as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. In my view the impugned award does not contain any discussion of the nature of the work done by the petitioner and has solely proceeded on the nomenclature apart from not examining the impact of section 2(s) of the Act. The entire discussion of the Tribunal is contained in the following findings:-
' It is an admitted case of the claimant that he was working as Supervisor on wages of Rs. 1,800/- per month. It is also so revealed out from the complaint lodged to the Labour Commissioner of which copy proved as Ex. WW 1/1 as well as from the statement of claim filed before Conciliation Officer, copy of which is proved as Ex. WW 1/5. It being so the claimant being not a workman there could not be any industrial dispute between the management and the claimant as defined under Section 2(k) or 2A of the ID Act, 1947. The claimant has been excluded from the definition of the workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947, being a supervisor and drawing wages exceeding Rs. 1,600/- per mensum. It is not the case of the claimant that he was not employed in supervisory capacity. '
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the following position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. K. Maini vs. M/s Carona Sahu Company Limited and Others reported as 1994 SCC (L&S;) 776 wherein it was held:-
'Whether or not an employee is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is required to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties and functions. Such question is required to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record and it is not possible to lay down any strait-jacket formula which can decide the dispute as to the real nature of duties and functions performed by an employee in all cases. When an employee is required to do more than one kind of work it becomes necessary to determine under which classification under Section 2(s) the employee will fall for the purpose of deciding whether he comes within the definition of workman or goes out of it. The designation of an employee is not of much importance and what is important is the nature of duties being performed by the employee. The determinative factor is the main duties of the employee concerned and not some works incidentally done. Viewed from this angle, if the employee is mainly doing supervisory work but incidentally or for a fraction of time also does some manual or clerical work, the employee should be held to be doing supervisory work. Conversely, if the main work is of manual, clerical or of technical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory or other work is also done by the employee incidentally or only a small fraction of working time is devoted to some supervisory works, the employee will come within the purview of 'workmen' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. '
4. The position of law laid down in Ananda Bazar Patrika (Pvt. ) Ltd. vs . The workmen : (1969)IILLJ670SC is as follows:-
' The question, whether a person is employed in a supervisory capacity or on clerical work, in our opinion, depends upon whether the main and principal duties carried out by him are those of a supervisory character, or of a nature carried out by a clerk. If a person is mainly doing supervisory 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 the work done by him will not convert his employment as a clerk into one in supervisory capacity. This principal finds support from the decisions of this Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. A. R. Chacko 1964 (8) FLR 128 and Management of M/s May and Baker (India) Ltd. vs . Their Workmen : (1961)IILLJ94SC . In the present case, we have, thereforee, to examine the evidence to see whether the Labour Court is right in holding that, because of the main work of Gupta being clerical in nature, he was not employed in supervisory capacity. '
5. Thus, it is clear that the impugned judgment has proceeded merely on the nomenclature of 'supervisor' used in respect of the petitioner without examining the nature of the principal duties entrusted to the workman. In view of the position of law extracted above, the impugned Award dated 6th March, 2000 is set aside and the reference is remanded back to the Labour Court for disposal in view of the above position of law.
6. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion and the position of law discussed as above, the matter is remanded back to Labour Court No. I to hear the matter and dispose it of on merits after taking note of position of law laid down in this judgment.
5. The parties to appear before the Labour Court No. I on 15th October 2003 who shall dispose of the matter expeditiously and preferably by 31st March 2004.
6. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.