JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

I.A. No. 02/2019:

1. The present application under Section 17 -B of the Act of 1947 has been rendered infructuous, its the respondent has attained the age of superannuation.

2. The application is dismissed having been rendered infructuous.

I.A. No. 01/2019:

3. The matter has been placed for consideration of the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India also, by which the respondent has prayed that the interim order dated 14.08.2019 be vacated.

4. Apart from the contentions on the correctness of the findings of the Tribunal, fundamental issue of Tribunal's jurisdiction has also been raised in the present petition.

5. On 14.08.2019, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted interim order considering various submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, including that the respondent - Sushil Kumar, who was appointed as Supervisor and drawing salary of Rs. 45,000/- per month, cannot be treated to be workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1947)

6. Mr. Balia, learned Senior Counsel invited Court's attention towards the respondent's initial appointment order dated 24.09.1996 and highlighted that the respondent was appointed as Supervisor (Inspection/Testing). Thereafter he navigated the Court through Annexure-3, encapsulating the responsibilities of the respondent and highlighted that all the key activities which the respondent was required to discharge treads him out of sweep of the definition of ‘workman.

7. The Court's attention was also drawn towards the last salary slip (Annexure-7) in order to buttress his stand. He pointed out that not only the respondent's designation has been shown as Senior Service Engineer but also his salary has been shown as Rs. 45,000/- (more than the upper ceiling given under clause (iv) of Section 2 (s) of the Act of 1947) in a bid to bring home his argument that the respondent was not a ‘workman’ at any point of time.

8. Having invited Court's attention towards the documents aforesaid, learned Senior Counsel argued that the learned Labour Court has committed an error of law in not deciding petitioner's preliminary objection in accordance with law. He argued that the Tribunal has held the respondent to be a workman, simply by recording a finding that there was no employee working under him and he had no authority to grant leave etc., which cannot be a decisive factor as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Maini v. Carona Sahu Company Ltd. , (1994) 3 SCC 510 .

9. Per contra, Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that merely because the respondent's appointment order shows him to be a Supervisor, he cannot be treated to be a person other than a workman. He argued that according to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and other High Courts, the Tribunal/Court is required to examine the documentary and oral evidence to ascertain as to whether the claimant has worked as a Supervisor or in managerial capacity.

10. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the promotion order (Annexure-3) of the respondent, in which he has been shown as Senior Service Engineer/Service Engineer and argued that at the time of his termination, the respondent was Senior Service Engineer/Service Engineer and not Manager or Supervisor, neither any person was working under him nor was he having any supervisory role. He thus, argued that the respondent was covered by the definition of ‘workman’ and the claim filed by him was maintainable under the Act of 1947.

11. Learned coun