JUDGMENT - Dharmadhikari, C.S. J.-This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-employee against the order passed by the Controlling Authority as well as the Appel-late Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, rejecting his application for payment of gratuity. 2, It is an admitted position that the petitioner-employee retired from the employment of the State Bank of India on or about 31st of March 1967 and started drawing his pension. Thereafter on 1st October 1968 he took employment with the United Western Bank Ltd., the respondent No. 1 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 645 per month. As per the letter of appointment he was appointed as a Superintendent of Branches at the Head Office of the Bank and was designated as such. On 31st of May 1978 he retired from respondent No. 1 Bank. After bis retirement he filed the present applica- tion under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 claiming an amount of Rs. 6600 as gratuity. The respondent bank contested the said claim mainly on the ground that the petitioner-employee was not an employee within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the said Act), since he was employed in a managerial or administrative capacity. The parties adduced evidence, both oral and documentary, in support of their respective contentions. After appreciating all the evidence on record the Controlling Authority came to the conclusion that the appli- cant is not an employee in terms of section 2 (e) of the said Act. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner-employee filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority agreed with the finding recorded by the Controlling Authority and dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant vide its order dated 31st of June 1981. It is these orders which are challenged in this writ petition. 3. Shri Kamerkar and Shri Valsangkar the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before me that the finding of fact recorded by both the authorities below are wholly perverse and are vitiated by an error apparent on the face of record. According to the learned counsel for decid- ing the question as to whether a particular employee is an employee within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Act what is relevant is the actual duties which he is carrying on. Nomenclature of the post or his background etc. According to the learned counsel for decid- ing the question as to whether a particular employee is an employee within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Act what is relevant is the actual duties which he is carrying on. Nomenclature of the post or his background etc. are wholly irrelevant for deciding such a question. Further the documents i.e. Manual of Inspection or other circumstances on which reliance” is placed by the authorities below were not put to the employee when he was in the witness box. He was not given any opportunity to explain the circumstances. In spite of this position an inference is drawn on the basis of the said docu- ments which is wholly impermissible. Learned counsel also contended that from the material and the evidence placed on record, it is more than clear that the petitioner-applicant was mainly employed to do supervisory work and was not employed in a managerial or administrative capacity. 4. On the other hand it is contended by Shri Patwardhan and Shri Badkar the learned counsel appearing for the Bank, that both the authorities below after appreciating the evidence on record have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner-employee was not an employee within the meaning of section 2 (e) of the Act. They further contended that if the educational qualifications and hierarchy of the post he was holding, coupled with the duties he was expected to carry out, are taken into consideration, then it cannot be said that the authorities below committed any error in coming to the conclusion that he was not an employee. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, I have gone through the entire evidence placed on record. It is by now well settled that mere nomenclature of the post is not of much consequence and what is to be seen is the nature of the duties performed by the employee concerned so as to arrive at a conclusion as to whether he is an employee within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Act. In (T. Prem Sagar v. MIs. Standard Vaccum OH Company, Madras and others)1, the Supreme Court has laid down broad guidelines for dealing with such a question. In (T. Prem Sagar v. MIs. Standard Vaccum OH Company, Madras and others)1, the Supreme Court has laid down broad guidelines for dealing with such a question. This is what the Supreme Court has observed in para 18 of the said judgment: “It is difficult to lay down exhaustively all the tests which can be reasonably applied in deciding this question. Several considerations would naturally be relevant in dealing with this problem. It may be enquired whether the person had a power to operate on the bank account or could he make payments to third parties and enter into agreements with them on behalf of the employer, when he was entitled to represent the employer to the world at large in regard to the dealings of the employer with strangers, did he have authority to supervise the work of the clerks em-ployed in the establishment, did he have control and charge of the correspondence, could he make commitments on behalf of the employer, could he grant leave to the members of the staff and hold disciplinary proceedings against them, has he power to appoint members of the staff or punish them; these and similar other tests may be usefully applied in determining the question about the status of an employee in relation to the requirements of section 4 (1) (a). The salary drawn by the employee may have no significance and may not be material though it may be treated theoretically as a relevant factor, vide T. P. Chandra v. Commis-sioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras'2 and Sri Ramaswami Bank Ltd., Salem v. Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Chepauk, Madras3.” The legal pesition on this question is also clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in The Burmah Shell Oil Storage and (Distribution Co. of India Ltd. v. The Burmah Shell Management Staff Association and others)4. Then in (Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. R. S. Bhatia through L. Rs.)5, the Supreme Court held that mere fact that the employee used to sign salary bills of the staff did not make him “employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity.” In my opinion these observations of the Supreme Court are pertinent and will govern the present enactment also-. In this context it is pertinent to note that while defining the term 'employee in the-Payment of Gratuity Act, the Legislature in its wisdom has included in its import even the persons employed to do the supervisory work. The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the import of the word “supervise” in All India Reserve Bank Employees'' (Association and another v. Reserve Bank of India and another)6. It is enough if a reference is made to the bead note of the said decision which reads as under : “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 oversight and direction as manual work coupled with a power of inspection and superintendence of the manual work of others. The question whether a particular workman is a supervisor within or without the definition of workman is ultimately one of fact, at best one of mixed fact and law. 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. The work in a Bank involves layer upon layer of checkers and checking is hardly super-vision. Where, however, there is a power of assigning duties and distribu-tion of work there is supervision. Mere checking of the work of others is not enough because this checking is part of accounting and not of supervision. The work done in the audit department of a bank is not supervision.” In the present enactment the Legislature in its wisdom thought it fit to define the said expression and also add an explanation to it, which read as under: “2 (e) “employee” means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages, not exceeding one thousand rupees per mensem, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway, com-pany or shop, to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employ-ment are express or implied, but does not include any such person who is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, or who holds a civil post under the Central Government or a State Government, or who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950, the Army Act, 1950, or the Navy Act, 1957. Explanation : In the case of an employee, who having been employed for a period of not less than five years on wages not exceeding one thou-sand rupees per mensem, is employed at any time thereafter on wages exceeding one thousand rupees per mensem, gratuity, in respect of the period during which such employee was employed on wages not exceeding one thousand rupees per mensem, shall be determined on the basis of the wages received by him during that period;” 6. In its import the legislation had included an employee employed to do supervisory or technical work. The only category of persons excluded are persons who are employed in the managerial or administrative capacity. It is also well settled that while deciding the question as to whether a parti- cular person is an employee employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, the actual duties which he was doing will alone be material. In such cases the Court should ascertain as to what is the main or substantial work which an employee is employed to do. In the case before me the peti- tioner-employee has stated in his deposition that he was doing the following duties: “1) On written instructions of chairman I had to inspect different Branches and submit reports to chairman; 2) I was given the work of follow-up action on irregular accounts. 3) To scrutinise inspection reports of other officers in respect of inspection done by them and submit notes to Chairman /Board of Direc- tors.” In his cross-examination he admitted that he had to discuss the matters with the Chairman and he alone was to discuss them. Some inspecting officers were below him and some were equal or of independent status. The decision regarding inspection of branches was taken by the Chairman, though on the basis of the chart prepared by him. The applicant was expected to inspect bigger branches including Bombay Fort Branch and the policy matters were never discussed with him by the Chairman. He then admitted that for few days he was working as officiating Chairman. He had also to sign for General Manager in his absence or when the General Manager was on leave. He then stated that he actually signed for the General Manager but he did not exercise any power as they were not delegated to him. He also admitted that he was designated as Chief Inspector of Branches. 7. He had also to sign for General Manager in his absence or when the General Manager was on leave. He then stated that he actually signed for the General Manager but he did not exercise any power as they were not delegated to him. He also admitted that he was designated as Chief Inspector of Branches. 7. So far as the evidence on behalf of the Bank is concerned Shri Mirajkar, the authorised representative of the Bank stated in his deposition that the applicant was the Chief Inspector of the Branches and at the time when he retired he stood 3rd in rank of officers of the Bank beginning from Chairman. According to him the applicant was working in a managerial capacity right from the beginning, and his inspection reports will prove all these facts. He admitted that no resolution empowering the applicant to do a particular type of work at the relevant time was ever passed. He also admitted that when the applicant officiated as Chairman the applicant was not paid any extra remuneration. Then a question was put to him as to whether the-applicant had taken any independent decision regarding staff matters such as dismissal of the employees or sanctioning of loan etc. The witness did not give any reply. A question was also put to him as to whe- ther the applicant performed any of the duties of the Chairman or General Manager as the case may be during the officiating period which is of a few days, his answer to the said question, was that the applicant was an officer of the Bank. He admitted that one Shri S. K. Ranade was working as Deputy Superintendent of branches. He also admitted that the Chairman gives letter of authority to the inspecting officer who conducts inspection of the Branches. A strong reliance was placed on behalf of the Bank on the Manual of Inspection and particularly upon the organisational set up of the Inspection Department. The relevant portion of the Manual reads as under: “There should be an inspection cell functioning under the adminis-trative control of the Head Office so that the inspection staff would report their findings freely and without fears. The Chief Inspector a well qualified and experienced Senior Officer should be in charge of this Department. The relevant portion of the Manual reads as under: “There should be an inspection cell functioning under the adminis-trative control of the Head Office so that the inspection staff would report their findings freely and without fears. The Chief Inspector a well qualified and experienced Senior Officer should be in charge of this Department. He would be assisted by select-ed officers who have worked in the operation wing for at least 2 to 3 years. Such officers may be given assistance of experienced clerks who have a thorough knowledge of the Bank's procedure. The Chief Inspector would stay at the Head Office to supervise the inspection work and would draw out inspection programme at the instance of the Chief Executive (Chair-man). The Chief Inspector may go out on inspection of important branches or Divisional Offices or any other branch as may be directed by the Chief Executive (Chairman). During his stay at the Head office he has to take up the work of follow-up actions on the inspection reports of all the branches and will advise the Management periodically the progress thereof. He will also advise the Management regarding procedures and practices and genera! condition for better result of the Bank as a whole. It is necessary that the staff drafted in the inspection department is not allowed to be stagnant but is transferred say after a period of 3 to 5 years to the operation wing to be substituted by suitable officers from the operation wing. This serves both as a means of training and as a device against creation of vested interests. There should be periodical meetings between the Chief Inspector and chairman so as to provide opportunities to project their views regarding policy discussions, existing system and procedures.” It is pertinent to note that neither the inspecting notes nor the inspection manual was put to the employee when he was in the witness box. Thus he had no opportunity to explain either the inspection notes or the rules in the said manual. In these circumstances no inference could have been drawn by the Courts below on the basis of the inspection notes 8. If the evidence adduced before the trial Court is considered with these recitals in the Manual of inspection, it is quite clear that the applicant was working in the inspection cell under the administrative control of the Head Office. In these circumstances no inference could have been drawn by the Courts below on the basis of the inspection notes 8. If the evidence adduced before the trial Court is considered with these recitals in the Manual of inspection, it is quite clear that the applicant was working in the inspection cell under the administrative control of the Head Office. As a Chief Inspector he was to supervise the inspection work and draw inspection programmes at the instance of the Chief Executive (Chairman). He was expected to go on inspection of important branches as may be directed by the Chairman. The work of follow-up actions on the inspection reports of all the branches was to be taken by him and he was expected to advise the management periodically the progress thereof. He was also to advise the management regarding procedures and practices and general condition for better result of the bank as a whole. Periodical meet-ings between him and the Chairman were held so as to provide opportunities to project their views regarding* policy discussions, existing system and procedures. If these directions incorporated in the manual of inspection are read with the evidence on record it is more than clear that the petitioner was mainly employed in supervisory work. From the admission of the Bank it is clear that at no time the petitioner was expected to take any policy decision on his own. Not only this, even he could not have drawn inspection programme on his own. He was expected to carry on inspection work at the instance of the Chairman, and directions in that behalf were also issued by the Chairman from time to time. Final decision on inspection notes or reports was taken by the Chairman himself. Therefore the applicant-peti-tioner was not expected to take any independent policy decision or any final decision on any matter whatsoever. Therefore if the evidence produced before the Court is tested in the light of the well settled guidelines, then it will have to be held that both the authorities below have committed an error apparent on the face of record in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was not an employee within the meaning of section 2(e) of the said Act. 9. It is no doubt true that both the Courts or authorities below have recorded a concurrent finding that the petitioner is not an employee. 9. It is no doubt true that both the Courts or authorities below have recorded a concurrent finding that the petitioner is not an employee. But it cannot be forgotten that the said question is not a pure question of fact and in any case it is a mixed question of law and fact. In arriving at a conclu-sion in that behalf the Court has to first address itself to the various duties assigned to the employee and then draw a conclusion of law as to whether in the light of the duties assigned to him, a person would be an employee with-in the meaning of section 2(e) of the Act. Moreover the very jurisdiction of the authority to grant gratuity would depend upon the correct findings as to whether a person is an employee or not. To that extent it is a jurisdic-tioaal fact. It Appeared that the relevant principles and /or guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in that behalf were not placed before the autho-rities below and, therefore, the authorities were swayed away by the back-ground of the applicant and his qualifications or hierarchy of the office. These matters may be relevant in a given case but are not decisive. What is decisive is the nature of the duties performed by the person concerned. Therefore having regard to the evidence placed on record, I have no hesita-tion in coming to the conclusion that the nature of the duties performed by the petitioner were supervisory in nature and not administrative or managerial. In this view of the matter this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Hence rule is made absolute. At this stage it is not disputed before me that the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 3500 as gratuity. The respondent Bank is directed to pay the said amount of Rs. 3500 to the petitioner within a period of one month. If the amount is not paid within a period of one month the said amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum till its realization. How-ever in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----