JUDGMENT T.S. Misra, J. - Rajendra Singh, the petitioner, was an employee of Scooters India, Ltd. He was appointed as assistant supervisor on a consolidated salary of Rs. 600 per month which was inclusive of all allowances. The terms and conditions, under which he was appointed were stated in the letter of appointment, dated 7 March 1975, a copy of which is annexure C 1 to the counter-affidavit. He was placed on probation for a period of six months with effect from the date of joining his duties. That letter also enumerated the duties of his post. Paragraph 15 of that letter is relevant for our enquiry which is extracted hereinbelow. "The duties of your post shall also include the following: (a) Fully responsible for proper upkeep and cleanliness of machinery, tools, equipments and working place under your charge. (b) Setting of job on different machines under your charge. (c) Working with your own hands on the machine/ machines attached to you. (d) Ensuring regulgar flow/availability of components and tools, etc., for completing the production norms laid down by the management for your machine/machines under your charge and maintain the laid down quality standards. (e) Any other job assigned to you by your superiors. " The services of the petitioner were, however, terminated after some time on 4 November 1978. The petitioner raised a dispute and ultimately the State Government in the Labour Department by Order No. 1076, dated 20 March, 1979, referred the dispute for adjudication. The matter of dispute referred was in these terms : "Kya sewayojakondwara apne shramik Rajendra Singh putra Swa. Sri Sardar Balwant Singh ko dinaak 4 November 1978, se karya se phathak Vanchit kiya jana uchit tatha/athra vaidhanik hai yadi nahin to sanhandhit shramik kya labh/chha tipoorti paney ka adhikari hai tatha anya kis vivhan sahit?" Before the Labour Court objections were filed on behalf of the Scooters India, Ltd., the employers. A rejoinder statement was also filed by the present petitioner. Documentary and oral evidence was also adduced in support of the respective contentions. It was urged before the Labour Court that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of that term given in the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. Hence the reference was bad in law and invalid. This contention was raised primarily on the basis that Rajendra Singh was drawing a salary of more than Rs. It was urged before the Labour Court that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of that term given in the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. Hence the reference was bad in law and invalid. This contention was raised primarily on the basis that Rajendra Singh was drawing a salary of more than Rs. 500 and was said to have been performing the duties essentially of supervisory nature. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue on the point in the following terms; " Whether Rajendra Singh is not a workman within the meaning of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act? If so, its effect?" The Labour Court answered this issue against the petitioner holding that the petitioner was working in supervisory capacity and got wages of more than Rs. 500 per month, hence he was not a workman within the meaning of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. In view of this finding the Labour Court further held that the dispute was not an industrial dispute, hence the reference was bad in law and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. It also observed that it was not possible for the Court to enter into the merits of the dispute and the case must be consigned to records as infructuous, the matter of dispute being outside the purview of the Court. Feeling aggrieved, Rajendra Singh has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of the said order of the Labour Court and for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Labour Court to rehear the matter of dispute and decide it in accordance with law and to treat the petitioner as being in employment with full wages. 2. The petition has been opposed by the employer Scooters India. Ltd. and a counter- affidavit has been filed on its behalf by Sri C. D. Sugdan, Assistant Personnel Officer in Scooters India, Ltd. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner controverting the averments made in the counter- affidavit and reiterating the averments made in the petition. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length. 3. For the petitioner it was submitted that the Labour Court had erred in holding that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act and it, therefore, further erred in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction and in not deciding the dispute referred to it by the State Government. The argument was that even though the petitioner was being paid salary of more than Rs. 500 per month, he was a workman as he was not doing any supervisory work as contemplated by the definition of "workman." The submission was that the petitioner has deposed before the Labour Court in clear terms that he was setting up the job himself on the machine and inereafter the workmen would operate the machines which were working automatically. He had to work on the machine himself and keep a record of the production being done in line No. 4 but he had no controlling power over the workmen nor had he any disciplinary authority over those workmen. Hence he was not working in any supervisory capacity. The learned counsel for the Scooters India, Ltd., on the other hand, laid emphasis on the duties mentioned in the appointment latter and also on the fact that the petitioner from the documentary evidence could not show that he had actually worked upon any machine and had actually produced any thing whereas other workmen, who were working under him, were producing some articles which the petitioner himself was noting down in the register. It was also said that the petitioner was making his own recommendation on leave applications of the workmen working under him and was in fact working throughout as supervisor. Hence he was not a workman. We were taken through the evidence adduced before the Labour Court which has been filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition and have given our careful consideration to all the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Before we proceed to examine whether the petitioner was rightly held to be not a workman, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. Section 2 defines various terms occurring in this Act. 4. Before we proceed to examine whether the petitioner was rightly held to be not a workman, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. Section 2 defines various terms occurring in this Act. Under section 2(1): "'Industrial dispute' is defined as meaning any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person." So a dispute between employers and workmen would be an Industrial dispute if it is connected with non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person. Section 2-A provides, that where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with or arising out of such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an Industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute. So an individual workman may also raise an industrial dispute if it is in connexion with his discharge or dismissal from office or retrenchment of service or termination of service. He should, however, be a workman "' workman' has been defined as any person (including an apprentice) employed in say industry to do any skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward whether the terms of employment be express or implied and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connexion with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge, or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person who, being employed in supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding Rs. 500 per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the power vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature. " 5. According to the employer, the petitioner is not a workman because he was employed in a supervisory capacity and was drawing wages exceeding Rs. 500 per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the power vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature. " 5. According to the employer, the petitioner is not a workman because he was employed in a supervisory capacity and was drawing wages exceeding Rs. 300 per mensem, the Labour Court, as pointed out earlier, has accepted this contention, but it is disputed by the petitioner. 6. Stress was laid on behalf of the employer on the fact that the petitioner was designated as assistant supervisor. Emphasis was also laid on the duties mentioned in the appointment letter and then it was vehemently urged on behalf of the employers that the petitioner has told lies that he had really produced goods which were shown as goods produced by R. Singh whereas there was another workman by the name of R. Singh who had in fact produced these goods. The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the Labour Court has not considered the evidence in its proper perspective and has in fact ignored certain material evidence on the record while coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a workman. 7. We may say at the outset that the designation of an employee is not of much significance. What is relevant is the nature of his work and the nature of his duties actually performed. It has to be examined if the manual or the clerical work is incidental to the main work or it is in fact a substantial work to be done by him. A person who is employed in an industry to do manual or supervisory or technical or clerical work would be a workman, but he would certainly not be a workman if he is employed in "supervisory capacity" and draws wages exceeding Rs. 500 per month. A person may be doing manual work as well as supervisory work. In that event the question is what is his main work which he is required to do even though he may incidentally be doing other type of work. The words "supervisory capacity" will have, therefore, to be construed in the light of the principle of social justice. A person may be doing manual work as well as supervisory work. In that event the question is what is his main work which he is required to do even though he may incidentally be doing other type of work. The words "supervisory capacity" will have, therefore, to be construed in the light of the principle of social justice. But before we do so we may say that the question of status is a mixed question of law and fact and hence can be gone into in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. The words "supervisory capacity" have not been defined in the Act. Certain tests, however, have been laid down in various decisions of the Supreme Court to determine what is supervisory capacity or supervisory work. For example. In All India Reserve Bank Employees' Association v. Reserve Bank of India, (A.I.R. 1966 S. C. 305), it was held that the word "supervise" and its derivatives are not of precise import. The word must often be construed in the light of the context, for unless controlled, they cover an easily simple over right and direction as manual work coupled with a power of inspection and superintendence of the manual work of others. The question whether a workman is a supervisor within or without the definition of workman is ultimately one of fact, at best one of mixed fact and law and some broad criteria are: (1) The question will really depend upon the nature of the industry, the type of work in which he is engaged, the organisational set up of the particular unit of industry and like factor. (2) The power of assigning the work and distributing duties is also another test to determine the nature of supervisory capacity. (3) Determining faults, reporting for penalty, making arrangements for filling vacancies is also another test. (4) Supervisors must have persons under them (merely having a responsible post is not enough ; he should be in a position of command). [See Lloyds Bank, Ltd., New Delhi v. Panna Lal Gupta, (A.I.R. 1967 S. C. 428). The above tests are not exhaustive, but they do give a guideline for determining whether a person was employed in a supervisory capacity. [See Lloyds Bank, Ltd., New Delhi v. Panna Lal Gupta, (A.I.R. 1967 S. C. 428). The above tests are not exhaustive, but they do give a guideline for determining whether a person was employed in a supervisory capacity. So whether a person is or is not employed in a supervisory capacity will depend on the nature of the industry, his work, the organisational set up and whether he was in a position of command. Incidentally the Labour Court has not approached the matter in this perspective. It has given four reasons for holding that Rajendra Singh, petitioner, was not a workman : (1) Rajendra Singh was appointed as an assistant supervisor and was being paid salary higher than that of any other skilled or semi-skilled worker. (2) The nature of the work performed by Rajendra Singh was different from that of any skilled or semi-skilled worker. (3) Rajendra Singh was recommending leave of the workers of line 4 and was thus doing a supervisory work. (4) Rajendra Singh did not actually work on the machine with his own hands and gave no production. These reasons do not, in our view, satisfy the test which is to be applied for determining whether Rajendra Singh was employed in a supervisory capacity. We have already pointed out above that the designation of a person employed in an industry is not of much significance. What is material is to see for what main work the person concerned was employed. The fast that he was paid more salary than other semi- skilled or skilled workmen would also be not of much significance if he was employed to do any skilled or unskilled or manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work in the industry, because what salary would a person get might depend upon his bargaining power and his capability with respect to the job for which he is employed. Rajendra Singh could also not be said to be in a position of command merely on the ground that he was recommending leave applications of other workmen. It was not the case of the employers that Rajendra Singh had the authority to grant the leave. He could merely recommend the applications. That recommendation could be accepted or could be rejected. Rajendra Singh could also not be said to be in a position of command merely on the ground that he was recommending leave applications of other workmen. It was not the case of the employers that Rajendra Singh had the authority to grant the leave. He could merely recommend the applications. That recommendation could be accepted or could be rejected. The fact that Rajendra Singh did not produce any thing on the machine would also not be quite material if it is shown that his main job was not to produce something from the machine but to set up the machine and other components. He was employed in a technical capacity. He had to set up the components so that other workers could work on the automatic machines assigned to these workmen. It was said that Rajendra Singh was also assigned with a particular machine where he was required to do work. If that were so, it goes against the employers. That shows that Rajendra Singh was also required to do, if not manual work, then at least technical work on the machine. How- ever, according to the letter of appointment he was also required to do manual work. The Labour Court also said that Rajendra Singh used to record the production of other workmen. In that event he was also doing clerical job. But it would not make him supervisor. The purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act is to decide an industrial dispute expeditiously and not to throw away a dispute on flimsy pleas. The Labour Court, in our view, has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed with costs. The order, dated 11 December 1979, passed by the Labour Court (annexure 9 to the writ petition) is quashed. The Labour Court is directed to decide the reference on merits in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove.