In the light of the above discussion I hold that Shri Rajeshwar Mahato was number a workman.
By numberice dated 1st September, 1985, respondent No.
1 was number workman within the meaning of that expression occurring in Section 2 s of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Tribunal recorded the evidence as well as took into companysideration documentary evidence which were produced by the parties.
The Tribunal then referred to the evidence both oral and documentary.
He had companytrol as well as supervision over the work of the jute mill workers working under him.
The decision of the Tribunal was challenged by respondent No.
1s services were terminated by giving him one months numberice.
1 was in charge of one of the three shifts of the work in the mill.
Industrial dispute was raised and the two questions which were adjudicated by the Tribunal were Whether termination of services of the respondent was valid?
1 was an employee of the appellant Corporation.
In the instant case Shri Mahatos functions were mainly of a managerial nature.
While stating that the Tribunal would number go merely on the basis of the designation attached to an employee, and it was companycerned with finding out as to what were the main duties performed by him, the Tribunal then referred to the evidence of the respondent himself as well as the other evidence and first observed that the respondent was really a supervisory staff and then ultimately it came to the companyclusion that From the above, it is clear that Shri Rajeshwar Mahato functioned in a managerial or administrative capacity also.
1 he was receiving Rs.
It was number in dispute that at the time of the termination of services of respondent No.
This point is decided accordingly.
1 by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court.
It was companytended by the appellant before the Tribunal that respondent No.
1185/ per month by way of salary.
The respondent No.
Having companye to the aforesaid companyclusion, the Tribunal held that the Government Order of Reference was number maintainable in law.
and What relief was he entitled to ?
The case of the appellant was that respondent No.
It dealt with the evidence of the O.P.W. 1 Jawahar Dubey and also with exhibits G and G/1 and observed that the said evidence and the Exhibit show that the respondent was a Preparing Assistant.
