V. BHARGAVA, J.

(1) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against an award of the Second Labour court, West Bengal, made on a reference of an indus- trial dispute which arose between the appellant, M/s. Ananda Bazar Patrika Private Ltd., and respondents, its workmen. This dispute related to the retirement ,of one Prafulla Kumar Gupta. The workmen raised the dispute that the retirement of Gupta was against the service conditions applicable to the workmen of the appellant Co. and, therefore, the issue, which was refer- red for adjudication, was as follows :

"IS the Company justified in retiring Shri Prafulla Kumar Gupta? If not, what relief is he entitled to?" The claim of the workmen was resisted by the appellant before the Labour Court on one single ground, viz., that Gupta was not a workman so that no industrial dispute could arise in regard to his retirement. The Labour court rejected this contention of the appellant and held that Gupta was a workman at the date of retirement and, consequently, gave the award against the appel- lant, It is this order of the Labour court that is challenged before us.

(2) AS the circumstances related above show, the sole question that fell for decision was whether Gupta was a workman on the date of his retirement or not. Admittedly, his total wages at the relevant date exceed Rs. 500.00 P.m. and the contention of the appellant Go. was that he was employed in supervisory capacity and, consequently, under Section 2(s) (iv) of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, he was not a workman. On behalf of the workmen, the plea was that Gupta was a clerk and was not employed in supervisory capacity and that is the contention which has been accepted by the Labour court.

(3) THE question, whether a person is employed in a supervisory capacity or on clerical work, in our opinion, depends upon whether the main and principal duties carried out by him are those of a supervisory character, or of a nature carried out by a clerk. If a person is mainly doing supervisory work, but, incidentally or for a fraction of the time, also does some clerical work, it would have to be held that he is employed in supervisory capacity ; and) conversely, if the main work done is of clerical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory duties are also carried out incidentally or as a small fraction of the work done by him will not convert his employment as a clerk into one in supervisory capacity. This principle finds support from the decisions of this court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. A. R. Chacko and Man- agement of M/s. May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen. In the present case, we have, therefore, to examine the evidence to see whether the Labour court is right in holding that, because of the main work of Gupta being clerical in nature, he was not employed in supervisory capacity.

(4) IN the course of the hearing of this appeal, learned counsel took us through the evidence of both the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant Co. as well as the sole witness examined on behalf of the workmen. The witness examined on behalf of the workmen is Gupta himself. When he was in the witness-box, no attempt was made on the part of the appellant Co. to question him on facts which, according to the written statement of the Co., constituted his employment in supervisory capacity. In Paragraph 2(/) of the written statement, the appellant Go. had pleaded that Gupta used to supervise the work of the clerks working under him, allot work to them, give them directions regarding work, grant them permission to leave office during working hours and recommend their leave. These facts were put forward in the background of the assertion that he was in-charge or manager of the Provident Fund Section of the appellant Go Gupta admitted that he was in-charge of the, Provident Fund Section and was designated as Manager. As lias been repeatedly held by this court, the mere designation as manager cannot bo decisive of th