:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6500 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO. 6500 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO. 6500 OF 1997 M/s. Western India Enterprises Ltd. Pune ..Petitioners versus Swapankumar Mukhopadhyaya & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. R. Nargolkar for the Petitioners. Ms. Seema Sarnaik for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have challenged the Order of the learned Industrial Court confirming the Order of the Labour Court holding that the respondent No.1 is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The respondent No.1 filed a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act against termination of his services. The petitioners resisted the complaint :2: interalia on the ground that the respondent No.1 is not a workman. The Labour Court decided the issue whether the respondent No.1 is a workman, as a preliminary issue. After allowing evidence to be led by the parties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent No.1 who is working as Sr. Engineer is a workman primarily because he has to work under the directions of Resident Engineer and Project Manager as and when required. The Order of the Labour Court however clearly states that the main work of the respondent No.1 was to get the work done through the subordinates though as per the directions and guidance of superiors. It would appear that the Labour Court was of the view that the task of the respondent No.1 was to get the work done through the subordinates which is normally considered to be a supervisory task, however, he cannot be treated as a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(s) because he himself functions under the direction and guidance of his superiors. This view is an incomplete view and does not answer the question properly. Indeed, a person may function as a supervisor but may himself be subject to the directions from other seniors. This by itself will not disqualify such a person from being treated as a supervisor who does a managerial function within the :3: meaning of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The Industrial Court has merely confirmed the finding of the Labour Court without appreciating the controversy. 4. In this view of the matter, I consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to set aside the Orders and remand the matter back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision. Having regard to the time that has already been consumed, the Labour Court is directed to decide the complaint itself within a period of six months from the date the parties appear before it. Parties are directed to appear before it on 30.3.2009. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)