Ramachandran Nair, J.

The question raised in the writ appeal filed by a hospital is whether the learned single Judge was right in confirming the order of the Labour Court holding that a consultant Physician employed by the appellant is a “worker” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D.Act’).

2. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant, counsel appearing for the first respondent-Medical Doctor who is the claimant before the Labour Court and the Government Pleader who, while appearing for the Labour Court, supported the case of the first respondent that the Medical Doctor is a workman within the meaning of that term contained in the I.D.Act.

3. Admittedly, the claimant in this case is a Post Graduate Doctor in General Medicine, who was employed in the appellant’s hospital on a monthly salary of Rs.8200/- in the year 1989. After leaving the service of the hospital, the Doctor filed a claim petition under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act before the Labour Court claiming wage arrears for Sundays and holidays worked by him during 1989 to 1991, i.e, for the period prior to his leaving the service of the hospital. The appellant resisted the claim mainly on the ground that the Doctor is not a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act entitling him to maintain a claim petition under Section 33C(2) of the I.D.Act before the Labour Court. The Labour Court overruled the appellant’s objection and found that the first respondent was entitled to realize an amount of Rs.66,000/- as holiday wages and Sunday wages from the appellant. When the order of the Labour Court was challenged before this Court, the learned Single Judge, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in the Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd. V. Burma Shell management Staff Association and Others (1970 (II) LLJ 590), held that Doctor is also a “workman” within the meaning of that term contained in the I.D.Act. it is against this judgment this writ appeal is filed.

4. Counsel appearing for the appellant, relying on a rather recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Muir Mills Unit of N.T.C. (U.P.) Ltd. V. Swayam Prakash Srivastava and another (2007 (112) FLR 865), contended that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court and therefore, the order of the Labour Court has to be vacated. Counsel appearing for the first respondent and the Government Pleader, on the other hand, contended that there are several other judgments including that of Supreme Court wherein a contra view is taken. Even though several judgments are cited before us, since the issue is squarely covered by the above referred judgments of the Supreme Court, we have to only examine, whether there is any decision of the larger Bench of the Supreme Court contrary to the same or whether any other judgments of the Supreme Court stands in our way, in following the above judgment. It is worthwhile to note that the position that a teacher is not a workman under Section 2 (s) of the I.D.Act is settled by a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ms.A.Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman & Diu and Others (AIR 1988 SC 1700). Even though counsel for the claimant and the Government Pleader, referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd.’s case (cited supra) which is a decision referred to by the learned single Judge, we notice from the judgment under appeal of the Madras High Court that the reference is only about Medical Attendant and the issue arose in 1964. However, it is worthwhile to consider the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the Management of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. V. presiding Officer, labour Court and Ors. (1997 (1) LLJ 569) wherein the court has assumed that the medical officer is engaged in technical duties and he would be a workman if he is not engaged in a supervisory capacity. However, th