An Assistant Engineer whose work and duties are not supervisory in nature and whose wages are not more than Rs. 500 per month is a workman under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the orders under Annexures-12 and 14 of the Deputy labour Commissioner, Meerut. Respondent No. 1, finding that the late Bennett Solomon was workman under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that his date of birth was January 15, 1918 and, therefore, his retirement on January 15, 1976 before he attained the age of 60 years was illegal.

( 2 ) THE late Bennett Solomon was working as an Assistant Engineer under the U. P. State Sugar corporation Limited, the petitioner. He died on May 15, 1977 and his legal representatives are respondent Nos. 2 to 6. According to the petitioner, Solomons date of birth was January 15, 1916 and, therefore, he was due to retire on January 15, 1976. The petitioner served a notice on december 9, 1975 on Solomon (An-nexure-5) stating therein that he would be retired from service with effect from January 15, 1976. Against the said notice Solomon made a representation (Annexure-6) under Clause-L. L. (4) of U. P. Sugar Standing Orders, 1971 governing the conditions of employment of workmen in Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories, to the labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh. The said representation was sent to the Deputy Labour commissioner, Meerut for disposal. Parties filed their respective affidavits before the Deputy labour Commissioner and also adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. Solomons case was that his date of birth was January 15, 1918 and as such he was due to retire only on January 15, 1978 and not on January 15, 1976. He also prayed for necessary correction of his date of birth. The case of the petitioner was that as per the records of the corporation, Solomons date of birth was January 15, 1916 and, therefore, he was due to retire on January 15, 1976. The petitioner took a preliminary objection that Solomon was not a workman as per the definition of that expression contained in the Act. On consideration of the materials and evidence placed before him, the Deputy Labour Commissioner vide his order under Annexure-12 held that Solomon was a workman under the Act. The preliminary objection having been held against the petitioner, the Deputy Labour Commissioner proceeded to consider the dispute between the parties regarding Solomons date of birth and held by his order under annexure-14 that Solomons date of birth was January 15, 1918 and as such he must be deemed to have continued in service till he attained the age of 60 years with full wages.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged before this court that the Deputy, Labour commissioner erred in law in finding that Solomon was workman under the Act as Solomons work and duties clearly took him out of the definition of workman as contained in Section 2 (z)of the Act. It may be noted that no material has been placed in this court enumerating the duties and the work which were performed by Solomon as an Assistant Engineer. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to paragraph No. 7 of Annexure-12 wherein Solomons duties have been described by the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The work and the duties of Solomon as described in the aforesaid paragraph No. 7 are as follows:-

" (i) his work was technical in nature; (ii) in case of break down of machine, he was himself repairing the defects; and (iii) he used to get the work assigned by the Manager and the Chief Engineer executed and for that purpose he used to look after the work of the workmen working under him and the concerned machines".

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner as the work and the duties of Solomon described above were supervisory in nature and his wages were more than Rs. 500 per month, he was not a workman under the Act. In support of this contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and distributing Co. of India Ltd. v. The Burma