THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.20570 of 2001 Dated: 03.09.2010 Between: V. Ravi Sankar. .. Petitioner. And The Industrial Tribunal-II, Chandravihar Bhildings, MJ Road, Hyderabad, And another. .. Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is directed against award dated 29.06.2001 passed in I.D.No.181 of 2000 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad. It appears, while the petitioner was working with the 2nd respondent Company, he was terminated from service by order dated 08.05.1998. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised a dispute in I.D.No.181 of 2000, under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D.Act’) before the Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad. It was the case of the petitioner, before the Industrial Tribunal, that he joined the services of the respondent Company on 31.12.1985 as a Supervisor and, later on, his services were confirmed in the said cadre with effect from 01.01.1987. He discharged his duties with utmost care and maintained good record of his services. While that being so, when he reported to duty on 08.05.1998, he was not permitted to join duty and was informed that his services were terminated, and then he immediately made a representation on 08.05.1998 itself to the management of the Company, who, without giving any reply to his representation, served the termination order dated 08.05.1998. It was his further case that even though he was called as Supervisor, he was neither having the power of control over the employees nor having the powers of appointment or removal of any employee working in his Section being called as Production, Planning and Control and, therefore, he is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The petitioner complains that the termination order has been passed contrary to the provisions of the I.D. Act and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was the case of the 2nd respondent herein, before the Industrial Tribunal, that the petitioner is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the case of the petitioner. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner examined himself as WW.1 and marked Exs.W1 to W9. On behalf of the management, MWs.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.M1 to M3 were marked. After detailed consideration of the matter, the Tribunal held that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act and therefore the very claim of the petitioner was not maintainable and, accordingly, dismissed the I.D. by the impugned order dated 29.06.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that simply because the petitioner was nomenclatured as a Supervisor and drawing the salary of Rs.4,800/- per month, it does not mean that he is a Supervisor performing the works of a Supervisor. The nature of the duties attended to by a person is the criteria for deciding as to whether he is a workman or supervisor. The Industrial Tribunal has not properly appreciated this aspect. The petitioner, who was examined as WW.1, was not cross-examined and, therefore, his evidence was un-rebutted. Even the evidence of MWs.1 and 2 did not support the case of the respondent Company that the petitioner was not a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and, therefore, on this ground alone, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent supported the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and stated that this is a case where the petitioner himself claimed that he joined as Supervisor in the 2nd respondent Company. At the time of appointment, the petitioner was put on probation in the faculty of Supervisor and all through he was working as a Supervisor only. Merely because the petitioner was also attending to some other works apart from works of a Supervisor, it does not mean that he comes within the purview of the workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, and the Industrial Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a workman. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. According to the petitioner, though he joined the services of the 2nd respondent Company as a Supervisor, he was in fact discharging the duties of a workman and therefore he is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. Admittedly, the petitioner was not cross-examined. But merely because the petitioner was not cross- examined and his evidence was not rebutted, it cannot be said that the petitioner has proved that he is only a workman and not a Supervisor. It was the contention of the petitioner that since there is no pleading in the counter that he is not a workman, the question as to whether he is a workman or not does not arise. In this regard, the Tribunal observed that though in the counter affidavit it was not stated directly in negative form that the petitioner was not a workman, however in view of clear admission that the petitioner joined with the respondent company as a probationary supervisor on 31.12.1985 and his services were subsequently confirmed with effect from 01.01.1987 vide order dated 03.01.1987 in the pay scale of Rs.600-1125, it cannot be said that the management has not taken the plea that the petitioner is not a workman. Further, it is to be noted that the pleadings and the evidence under the Industrial Disputes Act cannot occupy the place of a suit of declaration or any other suit before a civil court, as observed by the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioner has not chosen to examine either any workman or any Supervisor working under the management to prove his contention. If really the petitioner was a workman, he would have got the benefit of settlements entered into between the workmen and the management, but from the entire evidence of MWs.1 and 2, nothing could be elicited that the petitioner was a beneficiary of any of such settlements. Further the evidence of MWs.1 and 2 would go to show that under the control of the petitioner, four workers worked and the petitioner was a competent officer to sanction leave to those workers. In the cross-examination of either MW.1 or MW.2, nothing has been elicited to say that the petitioner was a workman within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. In fact, MW.2, in his cross- examination, asserted that the duties of Supervisor and Junior Officer are one and the same and the petitioner is under his direct control. MW.2 also stated that as the Junior Scale Officer post is higher in designation, the petitioner was bound to obey the instructions given by the Junior Scale Officer. But merely because the petitioner is supposed to obey and bound by the instructions of the Junior Scale Officer, it does not mean that he looses his status of a Supervisor. As per the evidence of MW.1, the petitioner was allotting the work to four unskilled operators working under him, and apart from that, the petitioner was operating the computer and issuing job work to the employees. This evidence of MWs.1 and 2 was not contradicted in their cross-examination. Viewed from all these circumstances, it cannot be that the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, and I am of the considered opinion that the Industrial Tribunal has not committed any error in calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 03.09.2010 v v