IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.A.No.1227 of 2011 DATED: 26.12.2011 Between: The Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool. ….Appellant And 1.M.Rahmathullah, S/o M.H.Mahaboob Kurnool and 3 others. .. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.A.No.1227 of 2011 JUDGMENT: ((Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 22.06.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing W.P.No.18271 of 2009 filed by the appellant-writ petitioner. The case of the 1st respondent is that he worked as a Elecrician in Kurnool Municipal Corporation and the appellant by virtue of proceedings dated 25.01.2002 asked the 1st respondent to retire from service at the age of 58 years on superannuation. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent raised the Industrial Dispute, whereunder the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent falls under the definition of workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 based on the evidence available on record and accordingly passed an award dated 31.10.2008 in I.D.No.155 of 2002. The appellant-Municipal Corporation filed W.P.No.18271 of 2009 challenging the aforesaid award of the Industrial Tribunal, whereunder the proceedings dated 25.01.2002 issued by the appellant were set aside and he was directed to continue the 1st respondent in the service up to the age of 60 years and that as the 1st respondent 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 said proceedings till attainment of 60 years as per law. By an order dated 22.06.2011, a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the present writ petition holding that since there is no evidence available on record to show that the 1st respondent discharged his duties as supervisory capacity for the post of Electrician, the Industrial Tribunal came to the right conclusion that the 1st respondent is a workman. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the 1st respondent herein was drawing a scale of pay but not the wages to claim that he is a workman. He further contended that the nature of duties entrusted and discharged by the 1st respondent herein amply establishes that he was working in a supervisory capacity and drawing the scale of pay equivalent to a Senior Clerk. He further contended that the 1st respondent is not entitled to be continued in service up to the age of 60 years as per Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Superannuation) Act, 1984, having regard to the nature of duties entrusted to the Electrician. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the order of the learned Single Judge is quite legal and valid and in that view of the matter, no interference is called for. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and other material available on record, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that there is no evidence available on record to show that the 1st respondent had discharged his duties as supervisory capacity for the post of Electrician. Admittedly, the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 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. No doubt, the 1st 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. Under the aforementioned circumstances, we are of the considered view that the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge is quite legal and justified and, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed upholding the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 26.12.2011 Gsn