1 wp4193-11 ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4193 OF 2011 Shri Ashok Thaka Bendkoli .. Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Vidula Patil i/b Mr.Prakash Devdar for the petitioner Mr.Joaquim Reis i/b MrR.A.Malandkar for respondents CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 8th JULY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner original complainant challenges the order dated 6.4.2011 passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai below Exh.U-2 in complaint (ULP) No. 514 of 2010 rejecting the petitioner s prayers for interim relief. ’ A few facts of the matter are as under: 3. The petitioner was appointed on 22.12.1992 as clerk and thereafter, he was promoted as Head Clerk. The respondents issued a show cause 2 wp4193-11 notice dated 14.12.2010. After considering the reply field by the petitioner, respondents decided to revert back the petitioner as clerk. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Industrial Court in complaint under section 9 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. In the said complaint, petitioner preferred interim application dated 21.12.2010 restraining respondents from reverting the petitioner from the post of Head Clerk to the post of Clerk. The said interim application was rejected by the Industrial Court by the impugned order dt.6.4.2011. 4. At the time of rejecting interim application of petitioner, Industrial Court observed that petitioner in his reply admitted that he was doing only supervisory work and therefore, he cannot be treated as Workman ‘ ’ under section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Industrial Court further observed that the issue whether the petitioner is workman or not will be decided after recording the evidence of both the sides, whether the petitioner was performing the duties of supervisory nature or he was performing the duties of clerical nature, for that purpose, evidence will be required. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the observations made by Industrial Court I do not find any substance in the case of the petitioner against the interim order passed by Industrial Court. Admittedly, petitioner in his reply specifically stated that he was performing duties in supervisory category. Therefore, 3 wp4193-11 whether he falls within the definition of Workman under section 2(s) or not, that can be decided only after recording evidence of both the sides. 6. Therefore, petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.K. TATED, J.)