1. The order of the Labour Court on application No. 24/02 under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) is called in question in this writ petition.

2. The records reveal that the respondent was appointed on 24.08.2000 as Business Development Manager, by the petitioner – Company as per the terms and conditions contained in the order of appointment – Annexure Ex.A.1. The petitioner – Company agreed to pay a sum of Rs.32,500/- per months as salary to the respondent. However, the salary for the months from April 2001 to November 2001 was not paid to the respondent by the petitioner – company and consequently the company was due totally in a sum of Rs.2,23,522/- to the respondent towards arrears of wages. Hence the respondent moved an application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act before the Labour Court.

3. The management of the petitioner – Company filed statement of objections before the Labour Court inter alia contending that the respondent is not entitled to get any salary from April 2001 to November 2001 since he was not working during that period in company and has not achieved the performance standard as agreed upon. It is further contended that as the respondent was performing the managerial functions, he is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act.

4. Both the contentions of the management of the petitioner – company were considered by the Labour Court thoroughly. The Labour Court ultimately concluded that the respondent is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act and that the management is liable to pay the wages of the workman from April 2001 to November 2001.

5. According to the management, the respondent herein was working as a Business Development Manager in the managerial cadre and was being paid wages of Rs.32,500/- per months; that he was incharge of marketing and sales department and was supervising the work of four employees working under him. In support of its case, the management has led evidence of R.W.1 who has deposed that the respondent herein was incharge of marketing and sales of the company and was supervising the work of four employees working under him. He has further deposed that respondent herein was in managerial cadre and therefore he is not a workman as defined under the Act. Ex. R.1 to Ex. R.13 are the documents upon which the management placed reliance to substantiate that the respondent is not a workman. But those documents do not reveal that the respondent was supervising the work of four employees and was sanctioning leave to them or that he was entitled to initiate disciplinary action against them. There is absolutely no record to show that the respondent was supervising the work of any of the employees in his section and was performing managerial functions. None of the employees working in the section were reporting to the respondent. On the other hand the respondent himself was reporting to his superiors. The respondent did not have the power to sanction leave to any of the employees who were working in his section. He is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority. No policy decision could be taken by the respondent. It is by now well settled that if a person mainly doing supervisory work, but, incidentally or for a fraction of the time, also does some clerical work, it would have to be held that he is employed in supervisory capacity: and, conversely, if the main work done is of clerical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory duties are also carried out incidentally or as a small fraction of work done by him will not convert his employment as a clerk or workman into one in supervisory capacity 1970 (3) SCC 248 (Ananda Bazar Patrika Private Limited //Vs// The workmen). Having regard to the nature of work and the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Labour Court was justified in concluding that the respondent herein is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. Mere nomenclature o