Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, aggrieved by the award passed by the first respondent/Labour Court, Coimbatore in I.D.No.357 of 1997, dated 11.5.2000, has filed the present writ petition. By the impugned award, the Labour Court rejected the claim made by the petitioner in assailing his order of termination passed by the second respondent/management. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 6.7.2001. Though pending the writ petition the petitioner sought for interim stay and interim direction, the same were rejected by this Court. 3. It is unnecessary to traverse into the merits of the misconduct leading to the termination of the petitioner. It is seen from the impugned award that the petitioner was held to be not a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity, "the Act"). The Labour Court found that the petitioner will not come within the term "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Act, as he is employed in a supervisory capacity, drawing wages exceeding Rs.1,600/- per month. 4. Section 2(s) of the Act reads as follows: "Section 2(s): "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, 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 - (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." 5. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner filed 12 documents and they were marked as Exs.W1 to W12. He also gave evidence as W.W.1. On the side of the second respondent, two witnesses – Mrs.Arokiamary Pameela and Mr.J.Rajendran were examined as M.W.1 and M.W.2 respectively. On the side of the management, 44 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.M1 to M44. Two material objects allegedly recovered from the petitioner were also marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. 6. On the side of the second respondent, two witnesses – Mrs.Arokiamary Pameela and Mr.J.Rajendran were examined as M.W.1 and M.W.2 respectively. On the side of the management, 44 documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.M1 to M44. Two material objects allegedly recovered from the petitioner were also marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. 6. The preliminary objection raised by the second respondent before the Labour Court was that the petitioner is not a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The Labour Court analyzed the materials placed before it and also the oral evidence let in by the parties and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. 7. Though Mr.Saravana Bhavan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the finding recorded by the Labour Court is only perfunctory and there is no discussion, this Court is unable to agree with the said submission. In paragraph [9] of the award, the Labour Court referred to all the documents filed in this regard and in paragraph [10] of the award, the Labour Court extracted the admission made by the petitioner in the cross-examination and it also found that six workers were under his control while he was working as Store Incharge and he used to supervise their work and report to the management from time to time and that he also signed those reports as department head. In the case of five workers, he recommended their confirmation in Exs.M1 to M5. Ex.M32 shows that he has also granted leave to the workers. In his cross-examination, he also admitted that his last drawn salary was Rs.3,350/-. The Labour Court also found that he has been recommending for salary increase, permanency for workers, grant of leave and communicating with the Excise Department and signing the bonds for sending the goods abroad and thus, performing supervisory work. It is based on the evidence placed before the Labour Court, those findings were rendered. 8. The counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in K.P.Subramaniam v. The Management of Ashok Leyland Ltd., Ennore, Madras and another. It is based on the evidence placed before the Labour Court, those findings were rendered. 8. The counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in K.P.Subramaniam v. The Management of Ashok Leyland Ltd., Ennore, Madras and another. In that case, the employee in question was a Maintenance Engineer and when he raised a dispute before the Labour Court, the Labour Court held that he was not a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s)(iv) of the Act. Thereafter, he preferred a writ petition and that was rejected. When an intra-court appeal was filed, the Division Bench went into the evidence placed before the Court and after taking note of several legal precedents, arrived at the finding that he was not discharging any supervisory work. The Division Bench held that the work performed by that workman in the supervisory capacity was only incidental to his technical work and mainly he was a technical worker and not supervisory worker and there was no power given to him to make any decision and even when he recommended increment to some workers that was overruled by the management showing that his decision is not final. It was also brought on record that he never took part in any decision making process. 9. It is not clear as to how the said decision is of any assistance to the petitioner. On the contrary, the overwhelming evidence relied upon by the Labour Court shows that the petitioner was discharging supervisory work and admittedly, drawing wages exceeding Rs.1,600/- per month. In such circumstances, when the Labour Court records a finding of fact based upon materials and also writes a reasoned award, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the same. In the light of the above, there is no case made out and this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.