1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3848/2008 Vijay Kumar Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur & Ors. Date of Order :: 29.7.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Kamal Singh, for the petitioner. ... By this petition for writ a challenge is given by the petitioner to the validity, correctness and propriety of the award dated 16.5.2007 passed by the labour court, Jodhpur answering the reference made to it by the appropriate government under a notification dated 14.5.2002 in the terms that “whether the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Parbatsar, District- Nagaur was right in terminating the workman Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Kalu Ram Sharma, Sewago Ka Mohalla, Post – Borawar (Nagaur) w.e.f. 1.4.99? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled?” The petitioner was employed as Sanitary Inspector on daily rate basis that is of Rs.70 per day on 8.1.1996 and he was discontinued from service on 1.4.99. The labour court while answering the reference held that the discontinuation of the workman was due to non-renewal of contract and therefore that does not amount to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2 This Court on 10.7.2008 directed counsel for the petitioner to satisfy the Court as to how a Sanitary Inspector is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Today the only argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was discharging supervisory duties and therefore he is required to be treated as a workman. I do not find any substance in the argument advanced. A Sanitary Inspector appointed under the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 is required to discharge managerial and supervisory duties relating to health wing of the Municipal Board. He is not required to discharge any manual, clerical or operational duties. In the instant matter the petitioner was receiving a sum of Rs.70 per day and monthly wages of the petitioner (while taking into consideration only 26 working days) is above the sum of Rs.1600 per month. As such, in any event the petitioner is not a workman, and therefore, the cause of the petitioner was not at all amenable to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Be that as it may, I also do not find any error in the award that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition therefore is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '