WP/7237/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7237 OF 2010 Shri Hari Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Dadra & Nagar Haveli ... Petitioner V/s. Tribhuvan Chaturdev Mishra & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Dineshkumar Dubey for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 7 TH DECEMBER, 2010. P.C. : 1. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Award dated 6th April, 2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dadra & Nagar Haveli at Silvassa in Reference (IDA) No.05 of 2007. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 was not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act since he was designated as a “Security Supervisor”. It is contended that the respondent No.1 himself in his statement of claim had mentioned so and, therefore, the Reference (IDA) No.05 of 2007 itself was not maintainable. Several judgements have been cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioner in support of his submission. 2. In my opinion, this submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is not sustainable. The respondent No.1-workman in his statement of claim has WP/7237/2010 2 described the nature of duties that he was performing. In his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief he has averred that although he was labelled as “Security Supervisor”, he was working as a “Security Guard”. He has further described the nature of his duties. The petitioner has not been able to shake this testimony while cross examining the respondent No.1. The Labour Court has, therefore, rightly observed that the respondent No.1 is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is well settled that the nature of work performed by a person and not the nomenclature of the post he occupies is important for determining whether a person is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. The Labour Court has directed reinstatement in view of the offer made by the petitioner to reinstate the respondent No.1 in his earlier post. The offer was made without prejudice to the Reference (IDA) No.05 of 2007 being kept pending for adjudicating other issues. Accordingly, the Labour Court has considered the issue of payment of back-wages and has directed that the back-wages must be paid from 1st November, 2006, i.e. the date of termination of service, upto 18th July, 2008, as the respondent No.1 was to resume duties on 19th July, 2008 in accordance with the offer made by the petitioner. 4. In my view, no error has been committed by the Labour Court Dadra & Nagar Haveli at Silvassa while passing Award dated 6th April, 2010 in Reference (IDA) No.05 of 2007. 5. The Writ Petition is rejected.