IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 314 OF 2011 SHRI ULHAS PALEKAR ... Petitioner Versus M/S. M. R. F. LTD., ... Respondent Mr. Hrudaynath Shirodkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 10th June, 2011 P.C. Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete the words 'Article 226' from the cause title of the petition. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the award dated 20th September, 2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I in Reference No. IT/10/1990 by which the reference made under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ('The Act' for short) has been rejected. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that initially he was working as a clerk with the respondent. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Quality Assurance Supervisor. The petitioner contended that he was illegally terminated by the respondent and raised the industrial dispute. Pursuant to the said dispute, conciliation proceedings under the Act were held which ended in failure report. Thereafter, the Government of Goa made a reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Act which was registered as Reference No.IT/10/1990. 4. Before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, the respondent raised the contention that the petitioner was not a workman in terms of Section 2(s) of the Act. After appreciating the evidence led by the parties, the Reference Court rejected the reference. 5. Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not discharging supervisionary duties and as such, he was a workman in terms of Section 2(s) of the Act and the finding given by the Industrial Tribunal that the petitioner was not a workman, is contrary to evidence on record. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union Ltd. Vs. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah; (2006)6 SCC 548. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record, I find that no case has been made out for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would be appropriate to quote paragraph 30 of the impugned award which reads thus : "30. It is further admitted fact that one Shri Vishnu Kamat who was also working as Quality Assurance Supervisor with Party II having Similar powers and duties as that of Party I, filed reference before this Court and the same was decided vide order dated 6/3/98 vide reference No.IT/9/90 and it was found that the said Party I was not covered under the definition of workman. The said Shri Vishnu Kamat, preferred writ petition before the Hon;ble Bombay High Court at Goa vide writ Petition No.167/99 wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court confirmed the findings of this Tribunal that Quality Assurance Supervisor is not a workman. The duties performed by said Vishnu Kamat and that of the present Party I were similar in nature which has been admitted by Party I in his deposition. Thus, it has been clearly accepted that the duties performed by Party I are of supervisory nature and therefore he cannot be considered as a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act. In view of this I pass the following order : 1. Shri Ulhas Palekar, Quality Assistant Supervisor of M/s. MRF Ltd., Ponda is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 2. The reference No.28/4/90-LAB dated 22/3/90 as to whether the action of the management of M/s. MRF Ltd., Ponda in terminating the services of Mr. Ulhas Palekar w.e.f. 28/9/89 is legal and justified, does not survive since this Tribunal cannot entertain such reference as Party I is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 3. In view of the above, the Party I is not entitled for any relief. No orders as to cost. Inform the Government accordingly." 7. From bare perusal of paragraph 30, it is clear that the petitioner himself admitted that his duties are similar to that of Mr. Vishnu Kamat, who was also employed by the respondent and the reference made at the instance of Vishnu Kamat was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal which was challenged before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.167/1999 which was also dismissed upholding the finding of the Tribunal that Mr. Kamat was not a workman. The distinction sought to be drawn by the learned Counsel that Mr. Vishnu Kamat was directly appointed as Quality Assurance Supervisor and the petitioner herein had been appointed as a workman and thereafter promoted as Quality Assurance Supervisor, has no merit in as much as it is the nature of the duties carried out by the person at the time of his termination by the employer, is relevant for deciding whether the person can be termed as a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The finding recorded by the Tribunal based on the admission of the petitioner that his duties are similar to Mr. Vishnu Kamat, cannot be said to be perverse and consequently, the rejection of the reference cannot be faulted. 8. The reliance placed on the judgment in the case of Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union Ltd. (supra) does not advance the case of the petitioner. Hence, the petition is rejected. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA