JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging an Award passed by the first respondent Principal Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.597 of 2002 dated 22.06.2009. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court dismissed the dispute raised by the worker and held that since the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D.Act), the dispute is not maintainable. 2. In the writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 05.10.2009. Subsequently, it was admitted on 27.08.2010. Thereafter, when the matter came up on 06.09.2011 for final hearing, this Court directed the Registry to call for the original records from the first respondent Labour court. Accordingly, records were summoned and circulated for perusal by this Court. 3. Heard the arguments of Mr.P.Solomon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.James, learned counsel for the second respondent. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the second respondent College as a Manager on 10.06.1998. He was paid monthly salary of Rs.6,600/- on consolidated basis. His services were terminated by an order dated 29.01.2002 without assigning any reasons. Therefore, he raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D.Act before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Conciliation, Chennai. The Conciliation Officer after due notice to the second respondent Management could not bring about mediation and gave his failure report dated 04.07.2002. On the strength of the failure report, the petitioner filed a claim statement before the first respondent Labour court on 23.09.2002. The first respondent took up the dispute as I.D.No.597 of 2002 and issued notice to the second respondent Management. 5. The second respondent Management filed a counter statement dated 25.01.2005. In the counter statement, it was stated that since the petitioner was appointed as a Manager and drawing salary more than Rs.6,600/- he is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act. His services were no longer required and hence, he was relieved from service with effect from 29.01.2002. 6. Before the first respondent Labour Court on behalf of the petitioner, he had examined himself as W.W.1 and on his side, 8 documents were filed and marked as Exs.W1 to W8. His services were no longer required and hence, he was relieved from service with effect from 29.01.2002. 6. Before the first respondent Labour Court on behalf of the petitioner, he had examined himself as W.W.1 and on his side, 8 documents were filed and marked as Exs.W1 to W8. On the side of the second respondent, one S.Chandrasekar, who was the Assistant Manager was examined as M.W.1 and on their side, 6 documents were filed and marked as Exs.M1 to M6. 7. The Labour Court on the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary recorded the finding that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act and rejected the dispute raised by him. Challenging the said finding found in the impugned Award, the present writ petition came to be filed. 8. The contention raised by the petitioner was that by mere nomenclature of the post held by the petitioner viz., the Manager, the issue cannot be determined. The nature of duties attached to the post will have to be gone into. He joined as a Clerk and subsequently promoted as a Manager. He did not have any control over the employees and he cannot take any independent decision. Hence, the finding of the Labour Court that he was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act was erroneous. 9. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in National Engineering Industries Limited v. Shri Kishan Bhajeria and others reported in AIR 1988 SC 329 to contend that if there was no independent right or authority to take a decision and a person was not doing any supervisory work but merely checking up on behalf of the employer cannot be said to be a non-workman. In that case, the person appointed was an Internal Auditor of the company. 9(i) The learned counsel further placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd., v. Burmah Shell Management Staff Association reported in AIR 1971 SC 922 . In that case, the person appointed was an Internal Auditor of the company. 9(i) The learned counsel further placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd., v. Burmah Shell Management Staff Association reported in AIR 1971 SC 922 . In that case, it was held that the main duties attached to the post will have to be seen and not the incidental work done by an employee which will determine the status of a workman and it has to be seen whether substantial work was discharged in the supervisory category without which it cannot be decided whether the person was a non-workman. 9(ii) The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab Cooperative Bank Limited v. V.R.S.Bhatia reported in (1975) 4 SCC 596. In that case, a person who was holding the post of an Accountant was found to be signing the salary bills of the staff even while performing the main duties of a clerk. The Court held that would not amount to managerial or administrative work. 9(iii) Lastly, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.K.Verma v. Mahesh Chandra and another reported in AIR 1984 SC 1462 to contend that even a development Officer of the Insurance Company was found to be a worker as he had no authority to bind the corporations and principal duty was to organise and develop the business of the Corporation. 10. In the light of the above judgments, the learned counsel contended that since the finding of the Labour Court was erroneous, the same should be set aside. Once his client is held to be a workman under the provisions of the I.D.Act, then for terminating his services no reasons were assigned and he having worked for more than four years, the termination was violative of Section 25-F of the I.D.Act. Hence, he is entitled for the normal relief of reinstatement with backwages. 11. In the present case, before the Labour Court, the Management had filed Ex.M5 which is the same as Ex.W2 filed by the petitioner showing the nature of duties allotted to him. In the nature of duties allotted to him, there were as many as 19 assignments given to the petitioner though some of them were of clerical in nature. 11. In the present case, before the Labour Court, the Management had filed Ex.M5 which is the same as Ex.W2 filed by the petitioner showing the nature of duties allotted to him. In the nature of duties allotted to him, there were as many as 19 assignments given to the petitioner though some of them were of clerical in nature. Item No.10 shows that he was incharge of General Correspondence, Item No.11 shows that he has to supervise the House Keeping members and Security guards, Item No.13 relates to Sundry Purchase, Item No.14 relates to Maintaining the furniture, Item No.15 relates to allotting class rooms, Item No.16 relates to maintaining the Staff PF files, Item No.18 relates to coordination of Administrative work and Item No.19 relates to College Purchase. In the oral evidence given by the petitioner as W.W.1, in cross examination, he had stated that after Principal and Vice-Principal, he was an administrative incharge. Ex.W2 (M5) viz., duties set out therein were allotted to him. Though he did not do Item Nos.1,5,7 and 11 of the list of duties, he had stated that the non-teaching staff has to ventilate the grievance to him and he will take up the matter to the principal. He denied the suggestion that he was fully incharge of the administrative work. In the evidence of M.W.1, it was stated that he was appointed as a Manager and continuously working as Manager till he was relieved. 12. The Labour Court in the light of these factual findings held that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act. It also held that the three decisions referred to by the petitioner were not apposite to the facts of the case. In the light of these factual finding, it has to be seen whether the petitioner is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act and whether the dispute raised by him is maintainable. 13. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union Ltd. v. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah reported in (2006) 6 SCC 548 has held that while determining the status of a worker, it is not only the nature of duties but the terms of appointment in the job are also relevant. 13. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union Ltd. v. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah reported in (2006) 6 SCC 548 has held that while determining the status of a worker, it is not only the nature of duties but the terms of appointment in the job are also relevant. Though the name assigned to the post held by him need not be given importance but the primary duties performed by him are important. Existence of subordinates whose work is required to be supervised is a sine qua non to prove supervisory work. 14. The Supreme Court in a judgment in Mukesh K.Tripathi v. Senior Divisonal Manager, LIC and others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 387 held that the judgment in S.K.Verma v Mahesh Chandra and others reported in (1983) 4 SCC 214 cited by the petitioner was held to be not a good law though it has not been expressly overruled by a constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd., reported in (1994) 5 SCC 737 , but yet the decision was held to be per incuriam. 15. Further, the Supreme Court in D. Krishnan v. Special Officer, Vellore Cooperative Sugar Mill reported in (2008) 7 SCC 22 has held that the person who was appointed in the capacity of Manager in a cooperative sugar Mills cannot be treated as a workman. 16. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner was engaged as a Manager and the list of duties has been furnished in Ex.W2 = Ex.M5. The petitioner, having accepted the list of duties, cannot lead oral evidence to state that he did not perform any particular duty in the list. Once it is held that he was performing the duties of a supervisory nature and believed by the Labour Court, such finding of fact cannot be interfered with in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, a person discharging the duties in a supervisory capacity and drawing more than Rs.1600/- as salary is excluded under Section 2(s)(iv) of the I.D.Act. 17. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.