Short Note : 1. Rajkumar Kapoor was earlier working in the Government of India Press at Aligarh when he applied for the post of Junior Supervisor (Printing) in the Bank Note Press at Dewas. He was then not selected. Kapoor then applied again and he was offered the post of Junior Operator on a temporary basis, which offer was accepted by Kapoor and he came to be appointed as a temporary Junior Operator at the Bank Note Press, Dewas, sometime in 1973. Thereafter, Kapoor was promoted to officiate as a Senior Operator at the same place. While working as Senior Operator at Dewas, Kapoor was placed under suspension by an order dated 5-2-1976 passed by the Management of the Bank Note Press, Dewas and later a charge-sheet was issued to him on 3-3-1976 alleging acts of grave misconduct. This action was taken by the Management of the Bank Note Press, Dewas (petitioner). It appears that the petitioner thereafter also informed Kapoor that he was actually an employee of the Government of India Press, Aligarh, where his lien continued and that he was, therefore, required to go back to Aligarh on repatriation by the petitioner. Kapoor did not accept this position and claimed that his appointment in the Bank Note Press, Dewas, was a fresh appointment; that he did not have a subsisting lien in the Government of India Press, Aligarh; and, therefore, he could not be repatriated from Dewas to Aligarh. Kapoor also denied the allegations of misconduct against him and challenged the validity of his suspension as well as repatriation to Aligarh, made by the petitioner. Held: The contention of Shri Nair is that the Bank Note Press at Dewas is not an 'industry' on account of which the Industrial Disputes Act does not apply to it. Shri Gupta has, on the other hand, pointed out the memo No.F. 5 (25) 70 Cy., dated 14-10 1971 (annexure R-I) from the Government of India, Ministry of finance, addressed to the General Manager, Indian Security Press, Nasik Road, which clearly says that unclassified industrial workers' being industrial employees are not governed by Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules being subject to the various industrial laws. He also relied on notification No. S.1107/14/15/DI(A) dated 26-11-1977 (Annexure R-III) from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, to the Manager, Government of India Press, New Delhi, where by the Central Government has, in pursuance of the provisions of sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, declared the service in the Bank Note Press, Dewas, to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act. Shri Gupta also points out that in the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while specifying the industries which may be declared to be public utility services under sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of section 2 of the Act, the industries specified at item Nos.11 and 12 are "Indian Government Mints" and "Indian Security Press", respectively. Shri Gupta, therefore, argues that in the face of the contents of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act itself and the notifications issued by Central Government under that Act declaring the Bank Note Press, Dewas, to be a public utility service under sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of section 2. There is no basis for the petitioner to take this contrary stand. In our opinion, these provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, as also the aforesaid notifications of the Central Government itself treating the Bank Note Press, Dewas, as an industry governed by the Industrial Disputes Act and declaring it to be a public utility service in the manner stated conclude this point against the petitioner and Shri Nair's second argument must also, therefore, be rejected. 2. The only surviving contention of Shri Nair is that Kapoor was not a worker of the petitioner within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, being employed in a supervisory capacity and drawing wages in excess of Rs.500 per mensem. There is no dispute that Kapoor was drawing wages in excess of Rs.500 per mensem. The controversy is whether he was employed with the petitioner in a supervisory capacity. The same set of authorities are relied on by both the sides to support the rival contentions. The test to be applied is not in dispute. Its application to the facts of the present case is the only controversy before us. The controversy is whether he was employed with the petitioner in a supervisory capacity. The same set of authorities are relied on by both the sides to support the rival contentions. The test to be applied is not in dispute. Its application to the facts of the present case is the only controversy before us. Shri Nair argued that Kapoor being the Senior Operator, his work was mainly supervisory and the other employees working on the machine in his batch were doing the actual manual work which Kapoor as the Senior Operator used to supervise. Shri Nair, therefore, contends that the nature of Kapoor's duty was mainly supervisory and not technical or manual. In this connection, the statement of Jagannath Ramchandra Vaidya, Assistant Works Manager of the Bank Note Press, Dewas, may be referred Vaidya has expressly stated that there are classified and unclassified cadres in the factory; Senior Operators, to which category Kapoor belonged, is an unclassified cadre; above Senior Operator is a Junior Supervisor and above him the Assistant Works Manager, Deputy Works Manager and Works Manager in that order; Junior Supervisor and above are classified cadres; and by designation Junior Supervisor is the lowest supervisory post. It is significant that the petitioner has relied entirely on oral evidence to support its contention that Kapoor was not a workman and the only oral evidence is the statement of Vaidya against that of Kapoor. Thus, this is the only material on which this question, the onus of which admittedly is on the employer, has to be decided. In our opinion, the petitioner has not placed sufficient material from which it can be inferred that the nature of duty of Kapoor as Senior operator was mainly supervisory and not technical or manual. Vaidya's own statement indicates that there is a classified cadre in the Bank Note Press, Dewas; that the lowest category in the classified cadre is a Junior Supervisor; that Senior Operator is in unclassified cadre and that Senior Operator is below Junior Supervisor who is the lowest in the classified cadre as also the lowest amongst the supervisory posts. Thus, no positive material to accept the employer's contention that the burden had been discharged by it is present on record. The Tribunal's conclusion on this point rejecting the employer's contention cannot, therefore, be called unreasonable or un justified on the material present on record. Thus, no positive material to accept the employer's contention that the burden had been discharged by it is present on record. The Tribunal's conclusion on this point rejecting the employer's contention cannot, therefore, be called unreasonable or un justified on the material present on record. This contention of Shri Nair must also, therefore, be rejected. Petition dismissed.