Judgment

DESAI, J.:- The appellant Mr. Arkal Govind Raj Rao joined service with M/s. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd. (employer for short) as Stenographer-cum-Accountant with effect from Jan. 18, 1956. On Jan. 1, 1966 he was appointed as Assistant and continued to render service in that post till his services came to be terminated on Oct. 10, 1972. The termination of service led to an industrial dispute being raised and ultimately the Deputy Commissioner Labour (Administration), Bombay made a reference to the Labour Court at Bombay for adjudicating upon the industrial dispute involving the question of the validity and legality of the order of termination of service. The reference also required to Labour Court to enquire whether the appellant is to be re-instated with full back wages and continued in service with effect from Oct. 10, 1972.

2. Numerous preliminary objections were raised by the employer, amongst them being one that the appellant is not a workman within the meaning of the expression in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act for short).

3. Evidence was led by both the parties and numerous documents were placed on record. On appreciation of evidence the Labour Court held that even though the appellant was doing some clerical work, he was also doing supervisory and administrative work and other work of checking bank reconciliation etc. which was not clerical work and therefore he was not a workman within the meaning of the expression in the Act but in fact he was an officer of the Covenanted Contractual Staff Cadre. Accordingly, an award was made rejecting the reference.

4. The writ petition filed by the appellant in the Bombay High Court was dismissed in limine. Hence this appeal by special leave.

5. Broadly accepting the appreciation of evidence and the findings of facts recorded by the trial court, could it be said that the conclusion reached by drawing impermissible inference from the evidence would justify a finding that the appellant was not a workman within the meaning of the expression in the Act. The expression workman as defined in S. 2(s) of the Act reads as under :

"Workman means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute but does not include any person

(i) who is subject to Army Act, 1950 (XLVI of 1950), or the Air Force Act, 1950 (XLV of 1950) or the Navy (Discipline) Act 1934 (XXXIV of 1934); or

(ii) ..........

(iii) ...........

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees Per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him,functions mainly of a managerial nature".

6. Where an employee has multifarious duties and a question is raised whether he is a workman or someone other than a workman the Court must find out what are the primary and basic duties of the person concerned and if he is incidentally asked to do some other work, may not necessarily be in tune with the basic duties these additional duties cannot change the character and status of the person concerned. In other words, the dominant purpose of employment must be first taken into consideration and the gloss of some additional duties must be rejected while determining the status and character of the person. Appreciation of evidence by Labour Court cannot be faulted but it landed itself into an erroneous conclusion by drawing impermissible inference from the evidence and overlooking the primary requirement of the principal and subsidiary duties of the appellant.

7. The Labour Court recapitula