JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. M. Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondent. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this case is heard and disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. Challenge in this writ application is to the Award dated-16.06.2005, passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 25 of 1997 (Annexure-9), whereby the Labour Court has held that the petitioner was not a workman. 4. The dispute between the petitioner and the Management arose upon the purported retirement of the petitioner from service. The contention of the Management was that at the relevant time, the petitioner had voluntarily applied for and elected for his premature retirement and by way of special consideration and in view of the long tenure of service and his personal difficulties, such permission for premature retirement was granted whereafter he was paid the entire Gratuity and other retiral benefits. The petitioner contested the Management’s claim by asserting that he had never voluntarily opted for premature retirement and that such retirement was unlawfully forced upon him. 3.5. By Notification Dated 15.07.1997, a Reference was made by the Government of Bihar to the Labour Court to adjudicate upon the reference, which was as under:- “Whether Shri B. Ojha, P. No. 61251, a Workman of M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd., Jamshedpur is a workman under Section 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and whether his retirement is justified? If not, what relief, he is entitled to?” 6. Terms of the reference was answered in the negative and against the petitioner by holding that the petitioner was not a workman as defined under Section 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the reference. 7. In response to the Notices, the Management appeared and submitted its written statements in the proceeding. The Management raised a preliminary issue, praying the court below to decide as to whether the petitioner was a “workman” or not? The learned court below decided the preliminary issue against the petitioner and in favour of the Management. 8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court vide W.P. (L) No. 636 of 2004. The Management raised a preliminary issue, praying the court below to decide as to whether the petitioner was a “workman” or not? The learned court below decided the preliminary issue against the petitioner and in favour of the Management. 8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court vide W.P. (L) No. 636 of 2004. The Single Bench of this Court allowed the petitioner’s writ application and remanded the matter to the learned court below with a direction to decide all the relevant issues. 9. After the case was remanded, the learned court below proceeded to adjudicate upon the reference by framing as many as five issues, which are as under: - (i) Whether Shri B. R. Ojha, employee is a workman? or (ii) Whether the workman has voluntarily tendered his resignation? (iii) Whether the termination of services of the workman is justified or not? (iv) Whether disciplinary authority was competent to take action/accept resignation? (v) To what relief, if any, the workman is entitled to? 10. Evidences were allowed to be adduced in the proceeding by and on behalf of the parties. Upon considering the evidences, the learned court below had recorded its finding that the employee Shri B. R. Ojha, was not a workman. Having arrived at such a finding, the learned court below observed that in view of its finding that the employee was not a workman, it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the terms of reference and as such, did not record any finding on the remaining issues. 11. Mr. A. K. Sahani, arguing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned award on the ground that the learned court below has committed a grave error in confining its finding only to one issue, namely, the issue as to whether the petitioner is a workman or not and has not decided upon the other issues, which it ought to have done in accordance with the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application filed by the petitioner and by which the learned Labour Court was directed to decide upon all the issues. Learned counsel argues further that after the case was remanded to the learned court below it was incumbent upon the court below to conduct the proceedings by calling upon the parties to adduce evidences afresh. Learned counsel argues further that after the case was remanded to the learned court below it was incumbent upon the court below to conduct the proceedings by calling upon the parties to adduce evidences afresh. Instead, the learned court below had relied upon the evidence of witnesses, who were earlier examined though they were not called upon to enable the petitioner to cross-examine. Learned counsel adds further that the finding of the learned court below on the issue as to whether the petitioner is a workman or not, is totally perverse and against the weight of evidence on record. Learned counsel explains that, as would appear from the impugned award itself, the learned court below has merely relied upon the designation of the petitioner as “Foreman” in stead of assessing as to what was the nature of work allotted to him as even as per the evidences adduced by the Management, the petitioner was never assigned any supervisory work nor did the petitioner have any authority to sanction leave to any employee or take disciplinary action against any employee. Learned counsel would want to explain that even as per the evidence adduced by the petitioner, he was employed in the Mechanical Section (SMS –III) of the Company, which was functioning with automatic and semiautomatic machines and the work of maintenance of the machines was done by a group of work force, comprising of Foreman, Assistant Manager, Deputy Manager and workman etc. The nature of work of the group was to keep the machines running and functioning in order and to give required production all the time. The team of work force used to be under the control and guided by the instructions of the Assistant Divisional Manager, Deputy Divisional Manager and Divisional Manager. In relation to supervision of automatic and semi-automatic machines, which run on power without human energy, the persons attending such machines are required to perform technical and manual work only. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel would refer to and rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anand Regional Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers’ Union Ltd.-versus-Shailesh Kumar Harshad Bhai Sah, (2006) 6 SCC 548 . 12. The Respondent-Management in its counter affidavit has contested the petitioner’s claim. Offering support to the impugned award of the learned court below, Mr. 12. The Respondent-Management in its counter affidavit has contested the petitioner’s claim. Offering support to the impugned award of the learned court below, Mr. G. M. Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondents would submit that the terms of the reference itself was improper due to the fact that the appropriate Government even without satisfying itself as to whether the petitioner, B. R. Ojha was a workman or not, had made the reference to the Labour Court and as such, the reference in itself was incompetent and invalid. Adding further, learned counsel submits that even as per the terms of the reference, since it was incumbent upon the learned court below to decide as to whether the petitioner was a workman or not, the initial onus was on the petitioner to establish that he was a workman. In the opinion of the learned court below, the petitioner had failed to discharge its onus by failing to give the details of his duties. Learned counsel argues further that in order to assess as to whether the employee is a workman or not, the test is the nature of primary or substantial duties, which the petitioner has been assigned to perform. The Management, according to the learned counsel, had adduced ample evidence both oral and documentary to confirm that the petitioner was assigned and was performing supervisory jobs including recommendation of leave of the employees under him and holding the post of a Senior Officer. Relying upon the Single Bench Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shrikant Vishnu Palwankar-versus-Presiding Officer, First Labour Court & Another, 1992 (II) LLJ 378 , learned counsel submits that the petitioner in his capacity of being, the “Foreman” was required to assign work and to supervise the work of the employees working under him and also to make recommendations regarding grant of leave and as such, on considering these aspects of the petitioner’s case, the learned court below had rightly recorded its finding that the petitioner is not a workman and therefore, the learned court below did not have any further jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the remaining issues. 13. The terms of reference, as has been noted above, upon which the learned court below was called upon to adjudicate, comprise of two distinct issues:- (i) Whether the employee was a workman under Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 13. The terms of reference, as has been noted above, upon which the learned court below was called upon to adjudicate, comprise of two distinct issues:- (i) Whether the employee was a workman under Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act. (ii) Whether his retirement was justified, and if not to what relief he is entitled to? In the context of the above two main issues, the learned court below has framed as many as five issues including the first issue as to whether the employee was a workman as defined under Section 2 (S) of the I.D. Act. 14. It appears from the impugned order that the learned court below has considered the evidences adduced both by the petitioner and the Management and has relied upon the specific evidence adduced by the Management both oral and documentary, which were not controverted by the petitioner. Prominent amongst such evidence, relied upon by the learned court below, was the evidence of the management-witness to confirm that the duty assigned to the petitioner in the capacity of Forman was the work of maintenance as well as in-charge of pit site officers of SMS III, Steel melting shop” and that about 50 employees were working under the petitioner and further, that the petitioner used to permit extra distribution of work and recommend leave of his subordinates. The other evidence relied upon by the court below was that admittedly, the annual appraisal of the work of the employees working in the Executive and supervisory category under the Management used to be maintained, such appraisal was not made in respect of workman. The appraisal of the petitioner’s work, he being in the supervisory category, used to be made accordingly. In ‘Part A’ of the Appraisal Form, the petitioner had himself filled the requisite information’s concerning the work assigned to him which, according to the learned court below had amply demonstrated that the work assigned to the petitioner was of supervisory nature. In his annual Executive Appraisal Form, part of which was filled up by the petitioner in his own hand, he has been designated as a Senior Officer. The learned court below had taken into consideration not only this aspect but also the petitioner’s own admission that he was re-designated to the post of Senior Officer with effect from 01.11.1981. In his annual Executive Appraisal Form, part of which was filled up by the petitioner in his own hand, he has been designated as a Senior Officer. The learned court below had taken into consideration not only this aspect but also the petitioner’s own admission that he was re-designated to the post of Senior Officer with effect from 01.11.1981. The learned court below has also taken note of the evidence found reliable that in his capacity as “Foreman”, the petitioner was assigned the job of imparting training to the workers under him. 15. In the case of Anand Regional Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers’ Union Ltd.(Supra), while considering the issue as to whether the employee working in supervisory capacity and was not a workman, the Supreme Court has laid down the test to determine and has held as follows: - “For determining the question as to whether a person employed in an industry, is a workman or not; not only the nature of work performed by him but also the terms of the appointment in the job performed are relevant consideration”…………… “Supervision contemplates direction and control. While determining the nature of work performed by an employee, the essence of the matter should call for consideration. An undue importance need not be given for the designation of an employee, or the name assigned to, the class to which he belongs. What is needed to be asked is as to what are the primary duties he performs. For the said purpose, it is necessary to prove that there were some persons working under him whose work is required to be supervised. Being in charge of the section alone and that too it being a small one and relating to quality control, would not answer the test. A person indisputably carries on supervisory work if he has power of control or supervision in regard to recruitment, promotion etc. The work involves exercise of tact and independence.” 16. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, learned counsel for the petitioner would emphasize that even if the petitioner was designated as a “Foreman” or a “Senior Officer”, the mere designation itself cannot be sufficient to conclude that the petitioner was not a workman. The work involves exercise of tact and independence.” 16. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, learned counsel for the petitioner would emphasize that even if the petitioner was designated as a “Foreman” or a “Senior Officer”, the mere designation itself cannot be sufficient to conclude that the petitioner was not a workman. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner’s primary duty was to maintain the automatic and semi automatic machines with the help of the work force enjoined to him and the work force was not under his direct control but was under the control of the Assistant Divisional Manager and the Divisional Manager and it was their instructions which used to be followed by the work force including the petitioner himself. 17. As would be observed from the discussions of the evidences, made by the learned court below in its impugned award, though the petitioner in his evidence, has not specified the duties assigned to him and had thereby failed to discharge his primary onus to establish that he was a workman, such evidence was brought forth by the Management and the inferences drawn by the learned court below there from, was that as per the duties assigned to him, the petitioner in addition to the work of maintenance of the machines, also used to discharge supervisory functions including recommending leave of his subordinates and imparting training to the workers under him. 18. I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned court below on the issue that the petitioner is not a workman under Section 2 (S) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The findings recorded on the first issue, was sufficient to render any further effort of the court below to decide upon the remaining issues, as redundant. 19. For the above reasons, I do not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned Award of the court below. There being no merit in this writ application, the same is dismissed.