JUDGMENT

B.N.KIRPAL, J.

(1) THE respondent No. I was an employee of the appellant Corporation. By notice dated 1/9/1985, respondent No. 1s services were terminated by giving him one months notice.

(2) INDUSTRIAL dispute was raised and the two questions which were adjudicated by the Tribunal were: (1) Whether termination of services of the respondent was valid? and (2) What relief was he entitled to?

(3) IT was contended by the appellant before the Tribunal that respondent No. 1 was not workman within the meaning of that expression occurring in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case of the appellant was that respondent No. 1 was in charge of one of three shifts of the work in the mill.

(4) IT was not in dispute that at the time of the termination of services of respondent No. 1 he was receiving Rs. 1185.00 per month by way of salary. The Tribunal recorded the evidence as well as took into consideration documentary evidence which were produced by the parties. On the basis of the evidence which was adduced before it, the Tribunal observed that:

"THE main duties of shri Rajeshwar Mahato were both supervisory and adminis