Judgment :- Y. VENKATACHALAM, J. In these writs since the parties to the litigation and also the subject-matter involved are one and the same, both the matters were taken up together and are disposed of by this common order with the consent of the parties concerned. Invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have filed the present writ petitions seeking for a writ of ceritorari to call for the records connected with the award of the first respondent, dated January 20, 1992, made in I. D. No. 44 of 1988 and to quash the same in W. P. No. 18780 of 1982 and to call for the records connected with the order of the first respondent, dated January 20, 1992, made in C. P. No. 1077 of 1986 and to quash the same in W. P. No. 18781 of 1992. In support of the writ petitions, the petitioners herein have filed separate affidavits wherein they have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the present writ petitions and requested this Court to allow the writ petitions as prayed for. Per contra, the second respondent herein has filed separate affidavits justifying the award and order passed by the first respondent and ultimately requested this Court to dismiss these writ petitions for want of merits. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have perused the contents of the affidavits and the counter-affidavits together with all other relevant material documents available on record in the form of typed set of papers. I have also taken into consideration the various points raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties during the course of their arguments. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only common point that arises for consideration in these cases, is as to whether there are any valid grounds to allow this writ petition or not.The brief facts of the case of the petitioners as seen from their affidavits are as follows : The petitioner is a public limited company and is engaged inter alia in the manufacture of dyes and chemicals for leather industry. The petitioner has a factory at Walajahpet where such chemicals, dyes are manufactured for the leather industry. The second respondent herein was appointed by the petitioner as a Research and Development Manager on June 1, 1982. The petitioner has a factory at Walajahpet where such chemicals, dyes are manufactured for the leather industry. The second respondent herein was appointed by the petitioner as a Research and Development Manager on June 1, 1982. The second respondent was appointed in the managerial cadre and he was entitled to certain privileges and perquisites like house rent allowance, provision of the telephone in his residence, leave travel assistance as available to the management cadre. The second respondent's job as a Research and Development Manager was : a) to promote and project the company's image; b) to create new products as per management's guidelines; c) to continuously investigate and identify alternative materials for substitution in existing product range in order to achieve economy in production, enhanced productivity and increased profitability; d) to find remedies for existing problems in order to improve quality and efficiency; e) to institute and implement control measures for maintaining quality of incoming raw materials, and outgoing finished products. Apart from this, the second respondent also had to recommend new products in developments and other allied matters. The second respondent who was entrusted with the above Work never came up to the expectation of the petitioner. The second respondent who was recruited mainly for developing new products did not develop even a single product. When the petitioner found that the second respondent failed to contribute anything to the petitioner-company, the petitioner was constrained to dispense with the services of the second respondent. The second respondent was called for a discussion on January 28, 1985, when his performance was analysed and his failures pointed out and the management's decision to dispense with his services was conveyed to the second respondent. The second respondent, however, requested time to find alternate employment. Considering the request on humanitarian grounds and as a gesture of goodwill and also taking into consideration of the post the second respondent held, the petitioner gave four months' notice to the second respondent and accordingly, the second respondent's employment came to an end on May 31, 1985. The second respondent having accepted the termination, however, chose to file an appeal under Sec. 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act which was dismissed on the ground that the provisions of the said Act were not applicable to the factory where the second respondent was working. The second respondent having accepted the termination, however, chose to file an appeal under Sec. 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act which was dismissed on the ground that the provisions of the said Act were not applicable to the factory where the second respondent was working. Subsequently, the second respondent chose to raise an industrial dispute and the same was taken up in conciliation. After failure of conciliation talks the dispute raised by the second respondent was numbered as I. D. No. 44 of 1988 and taken on the file of the first respondent. The petitioner entered appearance before the first respondent and filed necessary pleadings and documents in support of their case. The petitioner took up a preliminary objection that the second respondent was not a "workman" within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as much as in his capacity as Manager-Research and Development he was carrying out managerial duties and hence was not covered by the Industrial Disputes Act. It was specifically pointed out before the first respondent that at the time of the termination of services of the second respondent by order, dated May 31, 1985, the second respondent was not a "work-man" within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) of the Act. The second respondent at the time of termination was a manager in the company and was designated as Manager-Research and Development which post he has been holding ever since June 1, 1982. Further as a manager he was given various benefits and privileges as applicable to the managerial cadre in the petitioner-management and his last drawn salary was Rs. 3, 700/- per month. In addition he was also entitled to further privileges as provided in the order of appointment, dated January 12, 1983. The second respondent thereafter was examined as a witness and he was fully cross-examined by the petitioner-management. During the course of examination, the second respondent admitted that he was gainfully employed in another company with effect from February 5, 1987 and was still continuing there and drawing a salary of Rs. 7, 600/- in the new establishment. He further admitted that as a Manager-Research and Development, if the raw material is not according to quality and specifications, he will give his opinion, on quality and only based on his opinion work will be done. 7, 600/- in the new establishment. He further admitted that as a Manager-Research and Development, if the raw material is not according to quality and specifications, he will give his opinion, on quality and only based on his opinion work will be done. He further admitted that he used to give opinions for finished products also and only based on his opinion, the company will modify or reject finished products and thereafter market the same. He admitted having signed as a Manager-Research and Development, M1 to M5 filed before the first respondent. He also admitted that in the attendance register M6 he used to sign as Manager-Research and Development. He further admitted that he never protested at any point of time with regard to what is written in the exhibit W1, dated January 12, 1983, viz., in the appointment order. Further even earlier to raising 1. D. No. 44 of 1988, the second respondent had filed a claim petition under Sec. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Having seen the entire material available on record and from the facts and circumstances of these cases, and also from the claims and counter claims made by the rival parties, the following are the admitted facts. The second respondent herein was appointed by the petitioner as a Research and Development Manager on June 1, 1982. His job as a Research Development Manager was : a) to promote and project the company's image; b) to create new products as per management's guidelines; c) to continuously investigate and identify alternative materials for substitution in existing product range in order to achieve economy in production, enhanced productivity and increased profitability;d) to find remedies for existing problems in order to improve quality and efficiency; e) to institute and implement control measures for maintaining quality of incoming raw materials, and outgoing finished products. That being so it is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent was appointed in the managerial cadre and he was entitled to certain privileges and perquisites like house rent allowance, provision of telephone in his residence, Leave travel assistance as available to the management cadre. That being so it is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent was appointed in the managerial cadre and he was entitled to certain privileges and perquisites like house rent allowance, provision of telephone in his residence, Leave travel assistance as available to the management cadre. Further it is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent was recruited mainly for developing new products but he did not develop even a single product and when the petitioner found that the second respondent failed to contribute anything to the petitioner-company, the petitioner was constrained to dispense with the services of the second respondent. Further in this case it is very clear that when the management's decision to dispense with his services was conveyed to the second respondent, the second respondent requested time to find an alternative employment and considering the request on humanitarian grounds and a gesture of goodwill and also taking into consideration of the post the second respondent held, the petitioner gave four months' notice to the second respondent's employment came to an end on May 31, 1985. Further the second respondent having accepted the termination, however, chose to file an appeal under Sec. 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act which was dismissed on the ground that the provisions of the said Act were not applicable to the factory where the second respondent was working. Thereafter as the conciliation failed the industrial dispute in question came into picture. That apart it is significant to note that Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act excluded even a person doing technical work provided he was employed in a managerial or administrative capacity. Therefore it is the strong contention of the petitioner that merely because the employee was doing technical work that did not make him a "workman" within the meaning of Sec. 2(s), and that the Labour Court committed an error of law in not noticing this aspect. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I see every force in the above contentions of the petitioner. Because even the documents filed on behalf of the employee himself he had described himself as a Manager doing managerial functions, That apart even in the statement made by the second respondent herein it becomes clear that the second respondent was Manager-Research and Development carrying out managerial and supervisory functions/duties. Because even the documents filed on behalf of the employee himself he had described himself as a Manager doing managerial functions, That apart even in the statement made by the second respondent herein it becomes clear that the second respondent was Manager-Research and Development carrying out managerial and supervisory functions/duties. Further, as rightly contended by the petitioner a mere reading of the pleadings of the second respondent would clearly show that the duties mentioned by the second respondent in his claim statement are certainly not the duties carried out by a workman in an establishment. Moreover a bare perusal of the evidence let in before the first respondent would clearly go to show that the second respondent was carrying out managerial and supervisory functions. Therefore it is rightly contended by the petitioner that the Labour Court erred in coming to a conclusion, that the second respondent was a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act even though the second respondent himself had narrated the job which he was required to do and a perusal of the same would clearly prove that he was engaged in the managerial cadre. Thus it is very clear in this case that the first respondent instead of arriving at a conclusion on sound judicial principles, passed the award on surmises. Therefore I am of the view that the impugned award has to be set aside.In support of their case the petitioner relied on the following decision : K. P. Subramaniam v. Ashok Leyland Ltd., 1998 (3) LLN 657, wherein it has been held, in Para 9, at page. 662, that : "... the first respondent-management have proved their case by placing acceptable oral and documentary evidence and the second respondent-Labour Court on appreciation of such acceptable evidence, arrived at a proper conclusion that the petitioner is not a workman as defined under Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947......." The above decision squarely applies to the facts of this case and supports the stand taken by the petitioner in these cases. In support of their case the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the following decisions." (1) T P. Wills Co. In support of their case the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the following decisions." (1) T P. Wills Co. Ltd. v. First Industrial Tribunal, (1982-II-LLJ-388) (Cal) (2) Sadhu Ram v. Delhi Transport Corpn., (1983-II-LLJ-383)(SC) (3) S. K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra, (1983-II-LLJ-429)(SC) (4) Arkal Govind Raj Rao v. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd. (1985-II-LLJ-401)(SC) A perusal of the above decisions go to show that factually the above decisions are distinguishable and they have no help for the respondents in this case. Further, in these cases it has been already found that the second respondent himself has clearly admitted during enquiry that he was designated as Manager-Research and Development and he also signed in the attendance register also like that and also he enjoyed various benefits and privileges as applicable to the managerial cadre in the petitioner's management. Therefore, in such circumstances of the present cases, the above decisions are not at all any way helpful to the second respondent-employee herein. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons and in the facts and circumstances of the cases and also in view of my above discussions with regard to the various aspects of these cases and also in the light of the various decisions discussed above, I am of the clear view that the petitioner herein has clearly made out a case in their favour and consequently the common award impugned in these writ petitions have to be set aside. Thus both the writ petitions succeed and they have to be allowed.In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the impugned common award in these cases is hereby quashed. WMPs are dismissed.