IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO. 319 OF 2008 NO. 319 OF 2008 NO. 319 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 324 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 324 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 324 OF 2008 Mr. Anantharaman Krishnan Mani ] .. Appellant (Org.Petitioner) Versus 1. M/s. Ion Exchange (India) Ltd. & anr] .. Respondents (Org.Respondents) Ms. Gayatri Singh for the appellant. Mr. P.C. Pawaskar for the respondent No.1. Ms. Uma Palsule-Desai, AGP, for respondent No.2. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & R.V. MORE, JJ. DATED: 20TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The Industrial Court has found that the appellant-petitioner is not a workman within the definition of "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The appellant was working as an IBM Punch Operator cum Typist with the respondent No.1. He was : 2 : promoted to the post of junior Accounts Assistant and thereafter as Accounts Officer. Above him, there was a post of Manager (Accounts). On the basis of the work which he had been carrying out, the Industrial Court has concluded that he was not a workman. The issue has been thoroughly dealt with by the Industrial Court. On a perusal of the judgment of the Industrial Court, we are satisfied that the Industrial Court has appreciated the evidence properly. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to convince us that the work carried out by the appellant was clerical in nature. However, it has to be borne in mind that we are not sitting in appellate jurisdiction. The learned counsel, instead of pointing out the error in the finding recorded by the Industrial Court, has attempted to pursuade us to re-appreciate the evidence. This is an appeal which has arisen after disposal of the Writ Petition under Article 226 and, therefore, the scope is different and limited and re-appreciation of the evidence cannot be gone into. 5. We do not find any substance in the matter. The Appeal stands rejected summarily. Sd/- Sd/- : 3 : [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE, J.] MORE, J.] MORE, J.] [S.B. [S.B. [S.B. MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.]