THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 18269 of 2009 O R D E R This writ petition is filed challenging the award dated 31.10.2008 in I.D.No.56 of 2002 passed by the third respondent- Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby proceedings No.5666/97- E1, dated 29.1.2001 issued by the present petitioner were set aside and writ petitioner was directed to continue the first respondent herein in the service up to the age of 60 years. As he was already retired from service by the date of Award, he was declared to be entitled for monetary benefits from the date of retirement under the above proceedings till attainment of 60 years as per law. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein contended that the first respondent herein was discharging his post as Electrician which is the supervisory post and he was drawing salary in the time scale of Rs.3550-7150 and therefore, he is not a workman, but, without considering that aspect, the impugned award is passed and hence he prays to allow the Writ Petition. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that the first respondent herein who worked as Electrician falls within the meaning of ‘workman’; that, this Court, by an order, dated 12.3.1998 in W.P.No.2235 of 1998 confirmed the order of the Tribunal, wherein the 3rd respondent therein was Tap Inspector and the Division Bench of this Court upheld the said Judgment and the order of the Tribunal became final. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the order under challenge. The case of the first respondent herein, who is the petitioner in I.D.No.56 of 2002 is that he worked as an Electrician in Kurnool Municipality. The petitioner herein, by virtue of proceedings dated 29.1.2001 asked the first respondent to retire at the age of 58 years on superannuation. Challenging the same, the first respondent herein raised the Industrial Dispute, whereunder the third respondent- Tribunal came to the conclusion that the first respondent falls under the definition of ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) based on the evidence available on record. There cannot be any dispute that the findings of the Tribunal cannot be interfered with unless such findings are not based upon any evidence or the said findings are perverse. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the first respondent, as Electrician, was not notified by the Government as inferior service and does not come within definition of Section 2 (s) of the Act. Even the witness examined on behalf of the management did not say that the first respondent was attending any supervisory duty. The definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Act, would clearly indicate that when a person is doing manual, unskilled, skilled, technical operational, electrical or supervisory work for hire or reward, that does not include any such person under any of the following four categories: i. Who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950) or the Army Act, 1950 (45 of 1951) or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), or ii. Who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employees of a prison or; iii. Who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or iv. Who being employed, in a supervisory capacity drawn wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per men-sum or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of a managerial nature. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein would maintain the norms provided under Clause-(iv) of Section 2(s) of the Act, wherein, if a person is drawing a salary exceeding Rs.1,600/- per mensum, he is not a workman. This Court is unable to accept the said contention, in view of the fact that this clause applies only to the persons who are employed in the supervisory capacity. No doubt, the first respondent herein was drawing more than Rs.1,600/- at the time of his retirement, but the salary alone cannot be taken into consideration to decide whether a particular person comes within the meaning of ‘workman’ or not. It is the supervisory capacity of the employee that can be a determinative factor. Since there is no evidence available on record to show the first respondent discharged his duties as supervisory capacity for the post of Electrician, the third respondent-Tribunal came to the right conclusion. In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.2235 of 1998 dated 12.3.1998 confirmed the award passed therein, wherein the petitioner therein was working as Tap Inspector and he was also entrusted with the duties of maintenance of water supply of main lines, leakage of water et c . The third respondent-Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record in right perspective and basing on various case law, came to right conclusion and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned Award. In that view of the matter, the impugned order under challenge does not suffer from any incurable legal infirmities so as to call for interference of this Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and it is dismissed accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------- 22.06.2011 Justice K.C.BHANU. DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 18269 of 2009 22.06.2011