Judgment : 1. The petitioner has challenged the award of the IInd Labour Court, Pune, dated 22.1995 holding that he is not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", and therefore dismissed the reference. 2. The Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Pune, referred the question of the petitioner’s termination by the respondent no.1 for adjudication under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10 read with sub- section (3) of section 12 of the Act. 3. Thepetitioner’s services were terminated by the respondent-company with effect from 23.1990 while he was working as Asstt. Purchase Officer (Logistic Management). He was then drawing a salary of Rs.3,630/- and was posted in M-1 grade which is meant for Managers. 4. In the reference, the petitioner examined himself and the respondent no.1 examined its Stores Officer. Inspection of the documents sought by the petitioner was granted. Purchase Officer (Logistic Management). He was then drawing a salary of Rs.3,630/- and was posted in M-1 grade which is meant for Managers. 4. In the reference, the petitioner examined himself and the respondent no.1 examined its Stores Officer. Inspection of the documents sought by the petitioner was granted. The Labour Court considered the evidence and argument and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act which reads as follows:- "(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 an 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) whois 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 six thousand five 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." Before the Labour Court as well as in this Court, there is no dispute about the position held by the petitioner at the time of his termination, the fact that the position was in M-1 grade and the salary drawn. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Labour Court committed an error in holding that the petitioner’s duties were mainly supervisory in nature and, therefore, the petitioner was not a workman. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner’s work included making entries in documents, which was the basic one and had no element of supervision in it. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Labour Court committed an error in holding that the petitioner’s duties were mainly supervisory in nature and, therefore, the petitioner was not a workman. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner’s work included making entries in documents, which was the basic one and had no element of supervision in it. The petitioner had to make several documents such as stock transfer notes, product delivery notes, central excise gate passes and had to check bills received by the company for payment. According to the petitioner, all these jobs involve making entries of dates into documents and are purely clerical in nature. The petitioner was not called upon to supervise the work of anybody else while doing this job and, therefore, his function could not have been classified as supervisory. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1, however, referred to the various duties which the petitioner had to perform and submitted that they were supervisory in nature. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the petitioner was entrusted with making recommendation for payments after checking the bills, entering into various correspondence under his signature, representing the company. He also had to sign leave cards as Head of the Department and appraisal forms of ‘C’ grade workmen. The petitioner also signed gate passes in the absence of departmental heads. The petitioner also approved stock transfer entries and checked quotation analysis sheet after they were prepared by category III employees. It was, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is a supervisor. 6. Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, defines the word "supervision" as under:- "The act of managing, directing, or overseeing persons or projects." It defines a "supervisor" as "One having authority over others; a manager or overseer". It is thus clear that supervision involves exercise of independent judgment and authority over matters or men, distinct from mere clerical work. 7. In S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra & anr. It is thus clear that supervision involves exercise of independent judgment and authority over matters or men, distinct from mere clerical work. 7. In S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra & anr. (1983 II L.L.J. 429), the Supreme Court, following the definition of "workman", observed as under:- "The words "any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work" are not intended to limit or narrow the amplitude of the definition of "workman"; on the other hand they indicate and emphasize the broad sweep of the definition which is designed to cover all manner of persons employed in an industry, irrespective of whether they are engaged in skilled work or unskilled work, manual work, supervisory work, technical work or clerical work. Quite obviously the broad intention is to take in the entire "labour force" and exclude the "managerial force". That, of course, is as it should be." 8. In Vinayak Baburao Shinde v. S.R. Shinde (1985 I CLR 318), this Court observed as follows:- "The word "supervise" means to oversee, that is to look after the work done by other persons. The word "supervision" occurring in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act means supervision in relation to work or in relation to persons. The essence of supervision consists in overseeing by one person over the work of others. This also involves a power in the person overseeing to direct and control the work done by the persons over whom he is supervising. In an industrial establishment normally there are three layers of work. One is the clerical or the manual work which is done by the workmen; the second is the supervisory work done by a supervisor; and at a higher level is the work of a manager." 9. Coming to the observation of the Labour Court in the present case, it appears that the Labour Court has rightly referred to the main attributes of the petitioner’s function, which were supervisory in nature. The work of appraisal of C-4 category staff and recommendation of their leave have been taken into account by the Labour Court. Moreover, the Labour Court has rightly pointed out that the power to recommend, assess and verify the work done by the subordinate staff was supervisory work and not clerical. In fact, interestingly, the petitioner has not stated anywhere that the nature of his work was clerical. Moreover, the Labour Court has rightly pointed out that the power to recommend, assess and verify the work done by the subordinate staff was supervisory work and not clerical. In fact, interestingly, the petitioner has not stated anywhere that the nature of his work was clerical. On the other hand, the petitioner admitted that he belongs to M-1 category, which is meant for Manager, and was not covered by any settlement or agreement entered into between the Union and the management. In making these observations, the Labour Court has referred to oral and documentary evidence in the matter. The tasks mentioned earlier in paragraph 5 supra, referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 are also supervisory in nature since they involve the overseeing of actions. In any case, they are not tasks, which are performed by the labour force. In this view of the matter, I find no error of law apparent on the face of the record. 10. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule stands discharged.