Rajamannar, C.J..- This is an appeal against the judgment of Rajagopalan, J. in W.P. No. 561 of 1956. The second respondent, M. A. Samtani, was employed as the Managr of the Coimbatore Branch of the appellant-firm, Jayems Engineering Co., Coimbatore, which had its Head Office at Bombay. There were also branches of the firm at Madras, Nagpur Delhi and other places. On 15th January, 1955, the second respondent received a communication from the Regional Manager of the appellant-firm, Southern India Branches, the material portion of which was as follows: "Under instructions from Head Office, Bombay, I am issuing the following Transfer Orders in connection with transfer of charge of Coimbatore Office. "Mr. M. A. Samtani is transferred from Coimbatore Office to either Delhi Office or Nagpur Office. Definite orders with regard to which office he is transferred will be issued on receiving necessary confirmation from the Head Office very soon. "J. H. Radhakrishnani, Manager of Kanpur Office, who has already arrived here and reported for duty and present in the office, is to take charge of Coimbatore with immediate effect. "Mr. M. A. Samtani is requested to hand over the complete charge of Coimbatore Office, Accounts Cash, Stocks, Furniture, Motor Cycle, etc., to Mr. J. H. Radhakrishnani today ". On receipt of this order, the second respondent handed over charge to Radhakrishnani. On 25th January, 1955, he received a further communication, in which he was informed that he was transferred to the Delhi Office to assist the ‘Present ‘Manager in the sales and the other office routine. Apparently the second respondent was not willing to go to Delhi. On 10th February, 1955, the appellant intimated to the second respondent that he should arrange to leave for Delhi within a week from the date of that letter, and, that, if he did not do so, he might consider himself as dismissed from service. The second respondent then wrote to the appellant, requesting that he might be retained at Coimbatore, and that, if that was not possible, he might be paid his salary and his travelling expenses to Delhi Neither request was complied with; and on 28th February, 1955, the appellant definitely informed the second respondent that he should consider himself, dismissed from service with effect from 17th February, 1955. On 9th March, 1955, the second respondent addressed a letter to the Labour Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Madras, claiming several items of relief against the employer, i.e., the appellant. In terms, this letter did not purport to be an appeal against the order of dismissal preferred under section 41 (2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. Objections were filed by the appellant to the demands made by the second respondent. The second respondent, then realising his mistake, applied to the Commissioner on. 12th July, 1955, that he might be reinstated, because his dismissal was illegal. He gave up the other reliefs claimed by him in his earlier letter. Apparently, this letter was treated as an appeal preferred under section 41 (2) of the Act. The appellant raised two preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition: (1) that the appeal was barred by limitation, and (2) that the second respondent could not avail himself of the provisions of the above fact, as he was employed in a position of management. Both the objections were overruled by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Madras, who dealt with the matter. He held that the appeal was not time-barred, and that, even if it was time-barred, there was sufficient cause to excuse the delay. He also held that the second respondent was not employed in a position of management. Subsequently, on 1st March, 1956, the Commissioner found that the dismissal of the second respondent was not for a reasonable cause, and he therefore set aside the order, discharging the second respondent from service. Thereupon, the appellant filed a writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation,, dated 1st March, 1956. Two contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant before Rajagopalan, J., who heard and disposed of the writ petition,- (1) that the appeal to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was barred by the time and the delay should not have been excused, and (2) that the second respondent was a person employed in a position of management and therefore fell under section 4 (1) (a) of the Act, Neither contention was accepted by the learned Judge, and the Petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. Hence this appeal. Before us the contention regarding limitation was not pressed ; and the argument on behalf of the appellant was confined to the second contention. The Additional Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation held that the second respondent did not fall within section 4 (1) (a) of the Act, because, at the time of his discharge, he was not the Manager of the Coimbatore Branch of the appellant firm, but was only an ordinary employee. The learned Judge agreed with the Additional Commissioner. His reasoning was that, though the second respondent was admittedly the Manager of the Coimbatore Branch upto 15th January, 1955, and, therefore, occupied a position of management, he was relieved of his office of Manager on that date, and, though he still continued in the employment of the appellant, he was not holding a position of management. According to the learned Judge, the relevant period for deciding whether a given person was in a position of management within the meaning of section 4 (1) (a) of the Act is the period antecedent to the dismissal or termination of his service. With respect to the learned Judge, we are unable to agree with him in what we consider to be a very narrow construction of section 4 (1) (a) of the Act. The second respondent was admittedly holding a position of management till 15th January, 1955. On that date the appellant-firm directed his transfer to either Delhi or Nagpur. There is nothing on record to indicate that, either as a punishment or otherwise, the second respondent was demoted to a grade lower than that of a Manager. His pay was not reduced. If an employee who is the Manager of a Branch is transferred to another Branch, and, in pursuance of the order of transfer, he hands over charge of the office of Manager which he was holding, he does not eo instanti cease to be a person employed in a position of management. If a District and Sessions Judge is on leave or under transfer he does not cease to be District and Sessions Judge. " Though he may not actually be exercising the functions of that office, while on leave so far as his status is concerned, it is certainly that of a District and Sessions Judge. If a District and Sessions Judge is on leave or under transfer he does not cease to be District and Sessions Judge. " Though he may not actually be exercising the functions of that office, while on leave so far as his status is concerned, it is certainly that of a District and Sessions Judge. Section 4(1) (a) is in the following terms:- "Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to (a) person employed in any establishment in a position of management." Obviously, the second respondent was a person employed in a a position of management upto 15th January, 1955. So, till that date, nothing in the Act applied to him. What has now been held is that, from 16th January, 1955, the Act has become applicable to him. The only reason for this sudden change is that he was asked to hand over charge of his office as Manager to another employee, since it was intended to transfer him to another office. In the judgment recently delivered in Messrs. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. v. Additional Commissioner for Workmen’s Compansation1, we have held that the category of persons who would come within section 4 (1) (a) of the Act is not confined to a very few employees like the General Manager or Assistant Manager of an establishment, but will comprise all employees who are not merely workmen and are in the position of wage-earners or members of a clerical department, but who have a certain amount of control of the affairs of the establishment. We hold that the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was vitiated by a manifest error of law, namely, that the person who admittedly was employed in a position of management till a particular date ceased to be such during the period when he was under orders of transfer. The appeal is allowed, and writ will issue, quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Madras, dated 1st March, 1956. There will be no order as to costs. R.M. ------------- Appeal allowed.