JUDGMENT S. Obul Reddi, J. This Special Civil Application is directed against the award of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Rajkot directing reinstatement of a workman with back wages from Dec. 14 1970 to Dec. 12, 1972. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this petition are these. The dispute that was referred to the Labour Court was whether Shri B. H. Nathani (respondent) should be reinstated with full back wages from Nov. 28, 1970. The petitioner is Bata India Limited, Calcutta, and the respondent-workman was employed as a salesman at the Company's shop at Porbandar. The respondent applied for privilege leave from June 15, 1970 to July 5, 1970 and went to Kampala, Uganda, on June 17, 1970. While at Kampala, he met with an accident on July 1, 1970 and suffered fracture of his leg. Then he sent his report from there on July 2, 1970 asking for leave up to Dec. 12, 1970. The Company granted him leave only up to November 4, 1970. He also enclosed with his leave application a medical certificate seeking leave from November 5, 1970 to December 12, 1970. The dispute between the Company and the workman is whether the workman absented himself without leave from Nov. 5, 1970 till Nov. 28, 1970, the date on which his services were terminated under the Standing Orders of the Company. The workman reported to duty on Dec. 14, 1970 but as he was not entertained, he raised a dispute which was ultimately referred to Labour Court. The Labour Court on the material placed before it by both sides recorded two findings; (1) that the respondent-salesman was a 'workman' within the meaning of S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act; and (2) that he was not absent without leave for sufficient cause. These two findings are assailed by Mr. Nanavati appearing for the Company. 3. According to Mr. Nanavati there is nothing to suggest from the material placed before the Labour Court that the workman was advised bed-rest by the Medical Officer who treated him and that as he had not asked for extension of leave in time as provided in the Standing Orders, the Company was left with no alternative but to terminate his services. 4. Nanavati there is nothing to suggest from the material placed before the Labour Court that the workman was advised bed-rest by the Medical Officer who treated him and that as he had not asked for extension of leave in time as provided in the Standing Orders, the Company was left with no alternative but to terminate his services. 4. The workman, after making an application for extension of leave on medical grounds also furnished a medical certificate which the Company wanted him to furnish in proof of his having suffered fracture of his leg. He was originally granted leave till Oct. 17, 1970 and again the Company received another application from him on Oct. 19, 1970 from Kampala demanding leave on medical grounds from October 18, 1970 to Dec. 12, 1970. A medical certificate was also enclosed along with that letter. The Company appears to have granted him leave only up to Nov. 4, 1970 on the ground that the Doctor who was attending on him had recommended only six weeks' leave. The Company's case is that the petitioner had written a letter dated Oct. 26, 1970 but there is dispute as to whether it reached the workman in Kampala. The fact, however, remains that he was out of India at Kampala from the date he left India till he returned on Dec. 14, 1970. The short question, therefore, for our consideration is whether he was prevented by sufficient cause from reporting to duty. 5. The Standing Orders which apply to the shop-employees of Bata Shoe Company provide for dismissal without any notice or pay in lieu thereof of a workman absent without leave for a period of seven consecutive days. The Standing Orders, however, provide that an employee shall be informed in writing of the charges against him and given an opportunity to defend himself. Relying upon the provision-of the Standing Orders, Mr. Nanavati contended, that the Company was left with no option but to terminate his services. According to Mr. Nanavati, the termination is not due to any misconduct on the part of the workman. It was due to the reason that he had overstayed the period of leave granted to him. Standing Order 27 provides for making applications for leave etc. Nanavati contended, that the Company was left with no option but to terminate his services. According to Mr. Nanavati, the termination is not due to any misconduct on the part of the workman. It was due to the reason that he had overstayed the period of leave granted to him. Standing Order 27 provides for making applications for leave etc. It lays down that applications for such leave must be submitted in writing through the Shop-manager so as to reach the Sales Office fourteen clear days before the leave is required. An employee is expected to plan his privilege leave in advance at the beginning of each year and to observe the same as far as practicable. Here we are not concerned with privilege leave. The privilege leave granted to him had expired. Then he had asked for sick-leave. In case of sick-leave, the employee shall inform the Manager and submit to him a Medical Certificate from a Registered Medical Practitioner along with his application when on leave latest by the 4th day of his absence. In case of protracted illness, Standing Order 28 provides that "If an employee suffers from any protracted illness, he will not be discharged provided that such illness does not exceed a period of six months and prior leave is taken from the Company from time to time". It also provides that where an employee is not invalidated, the period of six months will not be strictly applicable and the circumstances will require that more than six months' leave should be given for protracted illness and the employee should be allowed to resume his duty if he is found medically fit for resumption of duty by the Company's Medical Officer. 6. From the facts presented before the Labour Court it would appear to be a case where the workman was under physical disability on account of a fracture of his leg sustained in an accident. It is true that the medical certificate of the Surgeon who attended upon him reached after the expiry of the original medical leave granted to the workman. A medical certificate dated July 8, 1970 was first issued to the 'workman by Dr. John Baguma of Kampala. In this he has opined that the workman had a slight fracture of right foot-ankle joint. Joint was swollen, tender and x-ray showed slight fracture of right side ankle joint. A medical certificate dated July 8, 1970 was first issued to the 'workman by Dr. John Baguma of Kampala. In this he has opined that the workman had a slight fracture of right foot-ankle joint. Joint was swollen, tender and x-ray showed slight fracture of right side ankle joint. He was, therefore, of the opinion that he was unable to walk "at present" and was under his care and treatment. The following treatment was given to him as evidenced by the medical certificate given by him:- "1. First was plaster slab. 2. Now he is on plaster right side ankle joint. 3. Complete rest. 4. Tab. Panadol P.R.M. 5. Tab. Phenobarbitone 30 mg. B.D. I think he must take rest for threo months until physiotheraphy treatment. He is supposed to come for check-up every one month." 7. Another certificate dated Sept. 24. 1970 from Dr. R. L. C. Joseph, Kampala, was also sent to the Company. In this certificate, Dr. R. L. C. Joseph opined that the workman needed six weeks' plaster of paris and he had to attend fracture clinic every one month up to following x-ray results. Mr. Nanavati says that it is on the strength of these two certificates that leave was granted up to Nov. 4, 1970 as requested by the workman. Thereafter, it is the case of the Company, as no medical certificate was submitted by the workman seeking extension of leave, the Company had no option but to terminate his services. Dr. Joseph of Kampala gave another certificate to the workman on Nov. 24, 1970. This certificate shows that the workman was re-x-rayed on Nov. 2, 1970 and the bone was completely healed, but as the patient had to make a journey to India, he suggested rest, walking stick and exercise up to middle of December and then start his normal duty. It is the case of Mr. Nanavati that this certificate did not reach the Company before the Company made the impugned order of termination of services on Nov 28, 1970. Admittedly this certificate was given by Dr. R.L.C.Joseph, F.R.C.S. (Eng.) only on Nov. 24, 1970. The workman could not have taken the risk of long journey from one country to another unless the Medical Officer permitted. Dr. Joseph had opined that he would be fit for normal work only by middle of Dec. Admittedly this certificate was given by Dr. R.L.C.Joseph, F.R.C.S. (Eng.) only on Nov. 24, 1970. The workman could not have taken the risk of long journey from one country to another unless the Medical Officer permitted. Dr. Joseph had opined that he would be fit for normal work only by middle of Dec. 1970 Therefore, the question is, whether the failure to report to duty immediately after the expiry of the leave granted by the Company is due to "sufficient cause". 8. We are of the opinion that the fact that this certificate which was issued after the order of termination was made by the Company explains as to why the workman could not report for duty immediately on the expiry of the medical leave granted to him. Whether sufficient cause is shown or not ultimately is a question of fact. The workman could not undertake the journey to India as it was risky to hazard on a journey without a further check-up and expert opinion. He could not report for duty immediately on the expiry of the medical leave granted by the Company for reasons beyond his physical control. Therefore, it is a case of protracted illness. We, therefore, agree with the finding recorded by the Labour Court in this regard that he was prevented by sufficient cause from joining duty on 4-11-1970. 9. The other point strenuously urged by Mr. Nanavati is that a salesman employed by Bata Shoe Company at one of its shops is not a "workman" within the meaning of S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The duties of a salesman are detailed by the petitioner in the petition itself. They are the following- "(a) To receive customers politely and smilingly with greetings & offer seat. (b) To sell Company's merchandise and render proper services to customers by taking off old shoes from customer's feet and trying on new ones, examining customer's old shoes and recommending repairs, receiving shoes for repair and issuing of repair slips, sending shoes for repair and effecting delivery when received after processing, recommending pedicure treatment, if needed. (c) To make out proper cash memos for the merchandise sold and to receive cash from customers and hand it over to the Cashier, to pack the merchandise sold and deliver the same along with the cash memos to the customers and to maintain proper evidence for repair of shoes. (c) To make out proper cash memos for the merchandise sold and to receive cash from customers and hand it over to the Cashier, to pack the merchandise sold and deliver the same along with the cash memos to the customers and to maintain proper evidence for repair of shoes. (d) To clean and maintain the stock he is responsible for, in proper order, to clean show-cases, show-window, podium and arrange displays entrusted to him to mark prices on shoes or other merchandise whenever required, to maintain furniture in good and proper order. (e) To report to Manager of any article falling short of our standard quality or found missing from shop. (f) To fill up daily mirror every day timely, prepare inventories of stock and furniture and to do such administrative work as may be required of him, to prepare weekly or fortnightly statement. (g) To help the Manager in opening and closing the shop and fixing posters and other works as may be deemed to be necessary by the Manager. (h) To help the Manager in packing and despatching of goods to Sales Office or any other shops or other stations whenever required. (i) To work on behalf of the Manager as and when required during his absence from the shop in the ordinary course of the day-to-day work and business. To do all other work necessary and connected with the shop and helping the manager in all respects to promote sale of the Company. (j) To bring to the notice of the Manager or other superior Officer any discrepancy or irregularity found by him in the shop affecting the welfare and reputation of the same and give suggestions for improvement of business and rectification of such defects. (k) To receive consignment, control quality of stock and arrange stock on racks and maintain them properly after cleaning." Mr. Nanavati, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court, in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. v. Management Staff Association, AIR 1971 SC 922 : (1971 Lab IC 699) contended that the respondent salesman cannot be brought within the purview of the definition of "workman" in Section 2 (s). In that case the question arose whether a Foreman (Chemicals) in the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd., was a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2 (s). In that case the question arose whether a Foreman (Chemicals) in the Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd., was a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2 (s). It was found on the facts of the case that his principal duties were of a supervisory nature and the manual work done by him personally was only incidental. There was also the further fact that he drew a salary in excess of Rs. 500 per mensem. They also considered the question of Sales Engineering Representative in Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd., and held that his main work as Engineering Representative was to promote sales which were canvassed primarily by District Sales Representative. The amount of technical work involved was all ancillary to the principal duty of promoting sales and giving advice. It was for that reason that the learned Judges held that the Sales Engineering Representative in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited is not a "workman" within the meaning of S. 2(s). The principal duties there of Sales Engineering Representative are different from the duties and functions of a salesman in the Bata Shoe Company. He does not go out of the shop to canvass sales nor does he supervise the work of. salesman employed for promotion of sales outside the shop. His work consists of unskilled labour. The fact that he tries to impress upon the customers that the shoes manufactured by the Bata Shoe Company are durable is not his principal duty. 10. The Supreme Court in Ananda Bazar Patrika (Private) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1969) 2 Lab LJ 670 enunciated the principles to be borne in mind while considering the question whether a particular employee would come within the meaning of S. 2(s). 10. The Supreme Court in Ananda Bazar Patrika (Private) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1969) 2 Lab LJ 670 enunciated the principles to be borne in mind while considering the question whether a particular employee would come within the meaning of S. 2(s). According to the learned Judges- "The principle which should be followed in deciding the question whether a person is employed in a supervisory capacity or on clerical work is that if a person is 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 the work done by him will not convert his employment as a clerk into one in supervisory capacity." To the same effect was the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the earlier case South Indian Bank Ltd. v. A. R. Chacko, AIR 1964 SC 1522 . Therefore, the duties that were assigned to the salesman in this case are not of any supervisory character so as to take him outside the ambit of Section 2 (s) of the Act. We, therefore, agree with the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the respondent is a "workman" within the meaning of S. 2(s). 11. This Special Civil Application is, therefore, rejected. Mr. Nanavati made an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Art. 133(1) of the Constitution. We are unable to certify that this is a fit case for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court since no substantial question of law of general importance which, in our opinion, requires to be decided by the Supreme Court arises in this case. Oral application is, therefore, rejected. Application rejected.