D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Naik waives service on behalf of the Respondent. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. The Labour Court at Solapur came to the conclusion on 1st June 2000 that the complaint filed by the Petitioner was not maintainable since he was not a workmen within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, not an employee as defined in Section 3(5) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The order of the Labour Court has been affirmed in revision by the Industrial Court on 28th November 2002.

3. The Petitioner was employed by the Solapur Municipal Corporation on 15th February 1980 as an Assistant Fire Brigade Superintendent and was promoted on 12th August 1992 as a Fire Brigade Superintendent. The services of the Petitioner came to be terminated after holding a departmental enquiry on the ground of misconduct. The Petitioner filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, in which (sic) preliminary issue in regard to the maintainability of the complaint came to be framed. That issue has been answered in terms as stated above. The case which was sought to be advanced by the Petitioner and which has been reiterated in the submission which has been urged before this Court is that as a Fire Brigade Superintendent, the Petitioner was required to extinguish fires, to attend to cases of building collapses, and even to handle situations involving drowning by water and road accidents. In the circumstances, it was urged that the work which was being rendered by the Petitioner was of a technical nature. Moreover, it was submitted that his work was being supervised by the Public Health Engineer.

4. Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines the expression 'workman' to mean any person employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward. The section, however, specifically excludes from the purview of the definition, any person who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity or who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, 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. In so far as the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, is concerned, the expression 'employee' is defined by Section 3(5) to mean inter alia, a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes ct, 1947. Therefore, if the Petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of the Central Act, he would not be an employee within the meaning of the State Act.

5. Now, it is well settled in this branch of law, as in many others, that designations are not dispositive. The Court has to have due regard to the real nature of the duties and functions. In so far as a supervisor is concerned, he or she is one who can bind the employer by taking some kind of decision on his behalf. (National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Shri Kishan Bhageria, : (1988)ILLJ363SC . A supervisor is one who has authority over others to superintend the direct. A supervisor may possess the authority to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or the responsibility to direct them or to adjust their grievances or effectively to recommend such action. The work of a supervisor is distinguished from work which is of a clerical nature by the exercise of independent judgment. The decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court have been considered in a judgment of Mr. Justice Rebello, speaking for this Court, in Union Carbide (I) Ltd. v. D. Samuel and Ors., 1998 II CLR 736. In The Bombay Dyeing and . v. R.A. Bidoo and Ors., 1989 2 CLR 248, a Division Bench of this Court held that a supervisor is an overseer. A person can be said to be a supervisor if there are persons working under him over whose work he has to keep a watch. A supervisor is empowered to take corrective steps if a subordinate error in work assigned to him.

6. In the present case, the Petitioner states in the course of cross-examination that as a Fire Superintendent, all the four Fire Stations of the Municipal Corporation were under his control. He then admitted that under his control there were two Fire Assistant Superintendents, 48 Firemen and 15 drivers. he specifically admitted that these persons were working under him. The Petitioner has then admitted specifically that he was the Head of the Fire Brigade Section. The Petitioner admitted that it was the duty of the Fire Superintendent to write the Confidential Reports of the Fire Assistant Superintendents and drivers. In the eventuality of a fire, he was required to be present on the spot and the work of extinguishing the fire would be carried out in accordance with his instructions. These admissions in the course of cross-examination are sufficient for this Court to sustain the view which has been taken by the Courts below which is to the effect that the work which has been rendered by the Petitioner was essentially supervisory in nature. On behalf of the Respondent, evidence was adduced of the person who was then in charge of the Fire Department. He stated that in all 75 employees work under the Fire Brigade Superintendent. There were four Fire Brigade Stations under his jurisdiction. The Superintendent issued instructions to his subordinates bout the work to be performed, wrote confidential reports and was vested with duties in regard to the grant of leave, sanction of pay and issuance of memos. In the course of cross-examination of this witness, it emerged that whereas the Fire Superintendent wrote confidential reports, they were eventually submitted to the Health Officer for his endorsement. Similarly, the payment bills which were signed by the Fire Brigade Superintendent were finally required to be sanctioned by the Health Officer. Consistent with the statement which was made by the Petitioner himself that he instructed persons working under his control in the eventuality of a fire, of the manner in which the work would have to be carried out, a similar statement was made by the in charge who also deposed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation.

7. On these facts, the Labour Court held that (i) The Petitioner was guiding and controlling the work of his subordinates: (ii) The Petitioner performed important duties in the matter of sanctioning of leave and writing of Confidential Reports: (iii) Having regard to the well settled principles of law laid down on this aspect, the work which was being performed by the Petitioner was of a supervisory nature.

8. The finding which has been arrived at by the Labour Court and affirmed in revision by the Industrial Court is unexceptionable. The Petitioner was incharge of the Fire Brigade Section and admitted that he was the Head of that Section. He was, in a true sense, required to oversee the work of his subordinates. A duty list was produced on the record of the Industrial Court. Among the duties of the Petitioner are to perform diligently the duties of the Fire Brigade Department, to scrutinise reports received from the officers of the fire station, to supervise the administrative work of the Fire Department, hear grievances of employees, supervise over the attendance of employees, guide employees in the event of a fire, and to take a drill parade of all employees in the fire department. The duty list which was brought on the record is consistent with the material which has emerged in the course of cross-examination of the Petitioner and of the witness of the Respondent. The Petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

9. The Petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Madan Mohan Marwaha v. Mgmt. of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co.Ltd., : 1987(13)DRJ65 . That was a case where the Petitioner had been appointed as a Fire Fighting Officer and was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Security Officer in the Respondent. The principal duties of a Fire Fighting Officer were fire fighting. Subsequently, though the employee came to be promoted as an Assistant Security Officer, the essential nature of his duties reminded the same though he was required to perform certain additional duties. The Petitioner there had no power to appoint, promote or dismiss any workman. The Delhi High Court in these facts came to the conclusion that the real nature of duties in that case was the fighting of fires which were manual in nature. He was, therefore, held to be a workman. In the present case, the facts are entirely different. The Petitioner, as the real nature of his duties would disclose, is a supervisor. He is the head of the Fire Brigade Section of the Municipal Corporation and is vested with control and supervision over the work of his subordinates. The Petitioner has himself admitted that all the four Fire Stations were under his control. The Petitioner similarly admits that under his control was the entire department consisting of two Assistant Fire Superintendents, 48 Firemen and 15 drivers. This case is thus, clearly distinguishable. The evidence demonstrates that the work which was being rendered by the Petitioner was of a supervisory nature.

10. In these circumstances, the finding which has been arrived at on the preliminary issue by the Courts below is not required to be interfered with in these proceedings under Article 227. The petitioner is accordingly dismissed. No costs.