Judgment

ORDER :- We have heard Mr. Garg at length and we are not satisfied that the case calls for our interference. The question raised in this case is whether the petitioner is a workman. The Labour Court has found that he is not a workman. The evidence is that he supervises the work of the maintenance department in the capacity of Maintenance Engineer and that he does the work through fitters and turners etc. who are his subordinates. It is also pointed out that he grants leave, initiates disciplinary proceedings etc. He has also power to make temporary appointments. We are of the view that the Labour Court is right in holding that the petitioner is not a workman. The stay stands vacated. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

For Citation : AIR 1988 SC 384