IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8882 of 2008 Date of decision : 14-07-2008 Hukam Singh .....Petitioner Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Circle I, Faridabad and another. .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present : Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The petitioner, in this case, has challenged the Award of the learned Tribunal dated 04-01-2008, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for re-instatement with full back wages and continuity of service, has been dismissed. The claim of the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the claimant does not fall within the definition of `Workman' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, `the Act'). Further, his pay was Rs.5,650/- p.m. and he was doing the work of Supervisor and he was incharge of the workers. He challenged the Award mainly on two grounds, firstly, no evidence was produced by the Management to show that the petitioner was appointed as a Supervisor Civil Writ Petition No.8882 of 2008 -2- and he was performing the duties of Supervisor, secondly, the oral evidence has been misrepresented, misconstrued and misread. To satisfy ourselves, the Bench directed the petitioner to place on record the statement of the petitioner which was duly placed on record as Annexure P-6. The relevant extract of the statement is reproduced below :- “ Above me was the owner. The owner was giving me salary by himself. After the owner I was the executive of the workshop.” We have gone through the Award and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are, thus, satisfied that the petitioner is functioning as a Supervisor/Executive of the Workshop and thus, does not fall under the definition of Workman as specified in Section 2(s) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Harish Kumar Gupta Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Haryana Faridabad and another reported in 2004(3) RSJ 659. To convince that an additional duty in Supervisory capacity does not mean performing supervisory duties depriving him of protection as workman under the I.D. Act. However, the said judgment does not apply in the facts of the present case. In this case, the petitioner has himself admitted that after the owner, he was the Executive of the Workshop. No other arguments were raised by the counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere Civil Writ Petition No.8882 of 2008 -3- with the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE JUDGE July 14,2008 gurpreet