JUDGMENT :

P. B. Bajanthri, J.

Appellant-Corporation have questioned the validity of learned single Judge's order dated 12.03.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 5764/2007 (L-RES).

2. Brief facts of the case is that, respondent was appointed as Assistant Traffic Inspector in the year 1979. He has earned promotion to the cadre of Traffic Inspector in the year 1982. While he was working in the cadre of Traffic Inspector on certain allegation he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by framing articles of charge on 24.09.1996 which has resulted in imposing penalty of reversion from the post of Traffic Inspector to that of Assistant Traffic Inspector on 28.05.1997.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of reversion respondent sought for reference, Reference No. 267/2000, was a subject-matter before the Labour Court. Labour Court proceeded to pass award in favour of respondent. Appellant-Corporation questioned the validity of award dated 12.07.2001 in Writ Petition No. 46880/2002 wherein the learned single Judge remanded the matter to the Labour Court on 27.05.2005. Thereafter, reference was decided afresh by the Labour Court while passing award against the respondent on 31.01.2006. Respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 5764/2007, which was allowed in favour of respondent on 12.03.2015. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant-Corporation.

4. One of the preliminary contention is whether respondent is a Workman or not which has been considered by the learned single Judge in its order dated 12.03.2015 while narrating that appellant-Corporation did not produced any documentary evidence to show that respondent was assigned the supervisory duty and the post held by him do not fall under the definition of "Workman" to the extent that he was discharging the duties of post of Supervisory. In other words appellant-Corporation has not entrusted him any supervisory duties.

5. Learned counsel for appellant-Corporation vehemently contended that the post of Traffic Inspector as well as Assistant Traffic Inspector do not fall under the definition of "Workman" since both the post holders are discharging the supervisory work as is evident from the circular dated 17.11.1992. For want of records the aforesaid circular was not produced. Para 15 of the circular specifically attaches duties of the Assistant Traffic Superintendent or a Traffic Inspector to take action against the frequent absentees and reports be submitted to the Competent Authority on time. This circular is in addition to the other duties reflected in Article 228 dated 14.05.1974. Copy of the circular dated 14.05.1974 has not been produced. It was submitted that with reference to circular dated 17.11.1992 suffice to hold that respondent do not fall under the definition of "Workman" and he falls under the proviso to Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity "Act 1947"). Merely non-production of circular dated 17.11.1992 that does not change the status of respondent so as to determine that he is a "Workman". Hence, respondent is not a "Workman" as he was discharging the duties of the supervisory.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that despite having ample opportunity was given to appellant-Corporation they have not utilized for the purpose of appraising the Labour Court and learned single Judge to the extent that the post of Traffic Inspector which was held by him do not have supervisory work.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent insisted that Traffic Inspector/Assistant Traffic Inspector would fall under the definition of "Workman" under Section 2(s) of the Act 1947. It was also submitted that respondent grievance was represented by Union. Therefore, under definition of Section 2(k) of the Act, 1947 the word used is "any person" since grievance of the respondent is agitated through Union. Consequently, one has to draw inference that respondent is a "Workman".

8. Further, learned counsel for respondent relied on the evidence of MW-1. W