JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises usual controversy as to whether the employee – respondent No.1, herein, is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1949 (“the I.D. Act”).

2. Background facts leading to this petition can be summarized as under:

(a) The petitioner is a Hospital run by a Public Charitable Trust. It employs about 1100 employees in different grades and capacities. Respondent No.1 was appointed on a temporary basis as a, “Food Service Supervisor” with effect from 15th October, 1990. In terms of the appointment order, respondent No.1 was to perform the duties as may be assigned to respondent No.1 by the Medical Superintendent and other Superior Officers. On 4th February, 1991, respondent No.1 was confirmed in the said post.

(b) The petitioner claimed on 11th February, 2003, a duty list captioned as ‘job description’ was served on respondent No.1. It is the claim of the petitioner that respondent No.1 had all along been discharging supervisory duties. As Food Service Supervisor the respondent had about 30 kitchen ward-boys working under his direct supervision and control. He was incharge of a