1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2936/2011 (ABDUL SALAM ABDUL GAFFAR VERSUS THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri B.M. Khan, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2011 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur dismissing a complaint filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not a workman and the complaint was not tenable under the provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer with the respondents. The respondents had raised an objection that the petitioner was not a workman and, hence, the complaint was not tenable. The parties tendered documents on record and after hearing the parties, the Industrial Court by the order dated 10.03.2011, dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. On the basis of the voluminous documents produced by the respondents on record, the Industrial Court 2 observed that the complainant-petitioner was an Officer invested with administrative, supervisory and financial powers. The Industrial Court considered the documents to hold that the petitioner had a right to sanction or reject the leave. The documents showed that the petitioner wrote the confidential reports of the subordinates and also assessed the confidential reports written by his subordinates. The petitioner also exercised the financial powers by issuing tenders and signing the bills. On consideration of the documentary evidence on record, the Industrial Court rightly came to a conclusion that the petitioner was not a workman and the complaint filed by the petitioner was not tenable. The Industrial Court considered the various reported decisions while dismissing the complaint of the petitioner. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant time when the complaint was filed, the petitioner was working in Deori Division of Gondia and the administrative, financial and supervisory powers are not exercised while working in the division and could be exercised only while working in the sub-division and the petitioner was not working in the sub-division is liable to be rejected as this ground is being raised in this petition for the first time. The petitioner had merely stated in the petition that he was a workman and the respondent had produced a series of documents on record to show that the petitioner was exercising administrative, supervisory and financial powers. The order passed by the Industrial Court is based on a proper appreciation of the material on record and calls for no interference. 3 In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE