JUDGMENT K.C. Sood, J.—This petition under Articles 226/227of the Constitution of India is directed against the award made by the learned Presiding Officer, H.P. Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Shimla (Annexure-P) with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the same. 2. The question raised in this petition is whether the petitioner who was an employee of the respondent Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited is a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Perspective 3. The petitioner was appointed as "Assistant Audit Officer" in grade M-5A with Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited, respondent Company. The petitioner was to be on probation for a period of six months from the date of joining. His probation period was extended by the respondent Company by three months. The petitioner resigned from his services by his letter dated March 24,1995. He desired that he should be relieved from his duties with effect from March 18, 1995. The petitioner was advised to clear his dues from the accounts department during office hours on any working day after submitting no due certificate. The resignation of the petitioner was accepted with effect from March 18, 1995. 4. Dis-satisfied with the acceptance of his resignation, the petitioner approached the Labour Department and a reference was made by the Government to the Presiding Judge, H.P. Labour Court in the following terms: (1) "Whether the action of the management of M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (Unit Himachal Pradesh, Darlaghat, District Solan) in forcing Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma, Assistant Audit Officer to resign from service of the management w.e.f. 18.3.1995, resulting in mental torture to the worker and acceptance of his conditional resignation by the management as alleged by the worker, is legal, justified. If not, to what relief of service benefits and amounts of compensation Sh. Ravinder Kumar Sharma is entitled? (2) Whether the resignation rendered by Shri Ravinder Kumar Sharma was voluntary as alleged by the management, if so, to what effect?" 5. The case of the petitioner as disclosed in his statement of facts was that he was victimized and harassed and thus was forced to resign from his post. His resignation, in the circumstances, was not voluntary and therefore, could not have been acted upon. 6. The case of the petitioner as disclosed in his statement of facts was that he was victimized and harassed and thus was forced to resign from his post. His resignation, in the circumstances, was not voluntary and therefore, could not have been acted upon. 6. One of the objections raised by the respondent Company before the Labour Court was that the petitioner was not workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned Presiding Judge of the Labour Court by his impugned award concluded that the petitioner was not a workman and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy referred to the Labour Court. 7. It is in this background that this writ petition has been laid by the petitioner for setting aside of the award made by the Labour Court holding the petitioner not to be a workman. The petitioner prays that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court (Annexure-P) dated 15.7.2003 be quashed and set aside. 8. Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines workmen : "2{s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory 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 on industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection 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— (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature". 9. 9. The case of the respondent Company before the Labour Court and this Court is that the petitioner was holding managerial /supervisory position drawing a salary of rupees 6,500/- approximately, therefore he does not fall within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the reference in question. 10. It is admitted position that the petitioner was appointed as "Audit Officer" (in Grade M-5A) by the respondent Company. Appearing as PW1, as notice by the Tribunal, the petitioner categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he was appointed as Assistant Audit Officer getting a salary of about 5000/- to 6000/- per month and his work comprised of supervision, control and evaluation of the work done by other persons of the establishment/ He further qualifies that he was being assigned clerical duties. 11. Learned Presiding Judge of the Labour Court concluded that the nature of duties of the petitioner was supervisory. He was to control and evaluate the work of other persons in the establishment and even if he was being assigned clerical duties, then it could only be said to be incidental in nature and not his major responsibilities. Otherwise also this part of the statement of the petitioner was disbelieved by the learned Presiding Judge. We have, for our satisfaction gone through the record. There is not a word, not a whisper in the statement of the petitioner before the Labour Court as to what clerical duties he performed. 12. Vinod Mohta who was immediate superior of the petitioner is categorical in his statement before the Labour Court that the petitioner was required to do the audit work in supervisory capacity. He was responsible to audit the various departments of the respondent Company on the basis of which policy decisions were taken by the Company. In cross-examination, this witness states "the petitioner used to carry out audit of other departments of the respondent company and used to submit the same to me which I used to forward to the higher authorities of the management for the purpose of taking management and policy decisions". It is the evidence of Mr. Mohta that the petitioner was next in rank to him in the Department of Audit. From the six levels of Management Grade from zero to five, the petitioner was employed at level-5. It is the evidence of Mr. Mohta that the petitioner was next in rank to him in the Department of Audit. From the six levels of Management Grade from zero to five, the petitioner was employed at level-5. Now a bare perusal of Section 2 (s) noticed above, would show that a person would fall within the purview of the definition of workman, if he is : (a) employed in any industry and (b) is assigned any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work. 13. Thus, a person performing the jobs mentioned above, only would fall within the definition of workman. 14. The Apex Court in Management of M/s. Sonepat Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ajit Singh, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 1050, look a view that job of a Clerk ordinarily implies stereotype work without power of control or dignity or initiative or creativeness. Their Lordships further observed that the question whether an employee has been performing "clerical" work or not, is to be determined with regard to the dominant nature of the duties and responsibilities of a person concerned. In para 16 their Lordships held: "16. Thus, a person who performs one or the other jobs mentioned in the aforementioned provisions only would come within the purview of definition of workman. The job of a clerk ordinarily implies stereotype work without power of control or dignity or initiative or creativeness. The question as to whether the employee has been performing a clerical work or not is required to be determined upon arriving at a finding as regard the dominant nature thereof. With a view to give effect to the expression to do "any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work", the job of the concerned employee must fall within one or the other category thereof. It would, therefore, not be correct to contend that merely because the employee had not been performing any managerial or supervisory duties, ipso facto he would be a workman". (Emphasis given) 15. In the present case, it is admitted position that the petitioner was entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of an auditor which would entail managerial or supervisory duties. The petitioner admits that his job consists "supervision, control and evaluation of work of other person of his establishment". Though he qualifies that he was being assigned clerical job. (Emphasis given) 15. In the present case, it is admitted position that the petitioner was entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of an auditor which would entail managerial or supervisory duties. The petitioner admits that his job consists "supervision, control and evaluation of work of other person of his establishment". Though he qualifies that he was being assigned clerical job. We notice he never made any grievance to the management that work of Clerk was being taken from him. 16. The requirement of the job of the petitioner, it is writ large, was managerial and in any event supervisory in nature. The petitioner admittedly was drawing a salary of more than rupees 1,600/-. Therefore he will not fall within the meaning of "workman" under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 17. The Apex Court in Sonepat Co-operative Sugar Mills (supra) referred to Miss A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and others, (1988) 4 SCC 42, wherein the Teachers serving in Educational Institutions were held to be not workmen as they were not found to be performing the duties of either manual or unskilled or skilled or technical or clerical. In the present case, the petitioner was not performing stereotype job. His job involved creativity. He would evaluate the working of the other Departments of the Company and submit his report to his superiors for taking policy decisions. 18. In our view, the petitioner does not fall within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the reason that he was entrusted with duties and responsibilities which were managerial in nature and in any event, supervisory in nature involving creativity. The petitioner admittedly was drawing salary of rupees 5,000 to 6,000 rupees per month. 19. The conclusion reached by the learned Presiding Judge of the Labour Court cannot be said to be erroneous or dehors the evidence on record. The answer to the reference made by the Presiding Judge of the Labour Court is not visited with any illegality or jurisdictional error. No merits. Dismissed. No costs., Petition dismissed.