:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8900 OF 2007 Shri Ramchandra T. Dhabekar ..Petitioner Vs. M/s. Eumark Pharmaceuticals ..Respondent Mr. Ashutosh Gole for petitioner. Mr. P.C. Pawaskar for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : January 07, 2008. Date : January 07, 2008. Date : January 07, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Gole the learned counsel for the petitioner who is aggrieved by the Part-I award passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court at Thane on 26/9/2006 deciding the preliminary issue as framed in Reference (IDA) No.155 of 1997. By the said impugned award, the Labour Court has held that the petitioner was not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. :2: 2. As per the petitioner though he was designated as Stores and Excise Officer, he was performing clerical duties and he did not perform any supervisory duties as contended by the Company. Before the Labour Court the petitioner examined himself in support of his case that he was a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, whereas the Company examined in all four witnesses and on analysing the evidence of all these witnesses, the learned Judge of the Labour Court has recorded a finding in the impugned preliminary award that the petitioner was performing the duties of supervisory nature. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before me the copies of depositions of all the five witnesses, including the petitioner himself. The petitioner in his cross-examination admitted that his monthly salary was Rs.4000/-, as per the appointment order dated 8/4/96 he was designated as the Stores and Excise Officer and he had received the said appointment order. He also admitted that he was authorised to enter into correspondence with the third parties, for material supplies by the principal as :3: well as he was authorised to appear before the Excise Authorities on behalf of the Company which was admittedly a proprietary concern. He also admitted that he had issued authority letters in favour of Mr.Haren Gandhi who was an employee of M/s.Cipla Ltd. to appear before the Excise Authorities. In his examination-in-chief he had denied that there were any assistants under him and emphasised that he was the only person in the Stores and Excise Department and remaining labour was hired on contract basis. The four witnesses examined by the Company were Mr.Haren Gandhi, Mr.Shripat Wakolkar, Mr. Prabhakar Kuwadekar and lastly Mr.Bhushan Pai who was the proprietor of the Company. Mr. Gandhi stated before the Labour Court that he knew the petitioner as the officer of the respondent-company which was engaged in processing various products for M/s. Cipla Ltd. He stated that there were several proceedings pending before the Excise Authorities and as per the letter dated 18/6/1996 signed by the petitioner the witness was given authority for attending the proceedings before the Excise Authority on behalf of the respondent-company. Mr.Shripat Wakolkar was working :4: as the Vice President of M/s. Mecodles Ltd. He stated that the respondent-company was processing the raw material supplied by M/s. Mecodles Ltd. and the petitioner was an officer coordinating the supply of raw material as well as finished goods. He also stated that the petitioner was addressing correspondence on behalf of the respondent-company and he referred to several documents at Exh.C-9 in this regard. The third witness Prabhakar Kuwadekar stated that he was the Assistant to the petitioner along with one Shri Rahul Athawale. He further stated that Mr.Athawale left the company and one Mr.Bhalerao was appointed at the recommendations of the petitioner in the year 1997. Mr.Kuwadekar was holding the post of Store Registrar since October, 1995 and before the petitioner’s appointment he was the person in-charge for the stores and excise department. After the petitioner was appointed he became one of the Assistants to the petitioner and the other Assistant was Mr.Bhalerao. He further stated that the petitioner used to sanction leave of his Assistants and also used to approve the expenses incurred by the Assistants for company’s work. :5: 4. The appointment letter issued to the petitioner and brought on record described his duties as under:- "You will be responsible for all the job responsibilities of the stores and excise matters including maintaining stores record, submission of monthly stock statements of own as well as loan licence parties, physical stock taking at a regular intervals, maintaining all excise record upto date and submission of all the required documents to the excise department and completion of all excise formalities as per the statutory requirement." . The appointment letter issued to Mr.Bhalerao on 1/5/97 was also brought on record. Having regards to the evidence both oral as well as documentary placed before the Labour Court, it cannot be stated that the Labour Court committed any error apparent on :6: the face of the record in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was performing the duties which were supervisory in nature and he was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. Hence no interference is called for in the impugned preliminary award under the supervisory powers of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. The petition is rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)