1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2837 OF 2010 Ghanshyam D.Ramteke ..vs.. Mr.S.K.Sharma and anr. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2010. Heard Mr.M.B.Agasti, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.R.B.Puranik Advocate for respondent no.1. I.D.reference made at the instance of the petitioner was answered in the negative after holding that the petitioner is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and on merits after finding that the petitioner did not report for duties. Advocate Agasti has contended that the petitioner was only authorised to sign transit passes and he was not supervising any other workers. Contention is that the basic nature of duties was only manual i.e. as a labour, Advocate Puranik has pointed out that there was a specific defence about the petitioner not being a workman and parties have led evidence. The petitioner in his cross-examination has accepted that he was supervising work of other labours. With the assistance of respective counsel for 2 the parties, I have perused the evidence and impugned award. Evidence shows that except for uttering that he was working as labour, the petitioner has not given details of his duties to find out nature thereof. In cross- examination he has accepted that he was supervising the work of other labours. This supervision coupled with his salary of Rs.2670/- per month, as disclosed in statement of claim, has been used by the Labour Court to hold that he is not a workman. Burden was upon the petitioner to bring on record details of his duties and he has failed to do so. The finding of Labour Court, therefore, cannot be labelled as erroneous or without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to show that there is termination. Learned counsel for the respondent – employer has urged that during conciliation proceedings the employer has given offer to the petitioner to join back. He tries to substantiate the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner has not reported for duties. I find that there is no order of termination or termination till date. Hence, with liberty to the petitioner to report for duties by 13th Sept.2010, the findings of Labour court are accepted. Hence, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. JUDGE chute