Judgment Alok Singh, J. Present petition is filed assailing the award dated 07.09.2009, passed by the Labour Court, Haridwar whereby reference made to the Labour Court was answered in favour of the workman respondent herein and against the employer petitioner herein. 2. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the employer/petitioner vehemently argued that it is not in dispute that respondent has worked continuously 240 days in a calendar year. He also does not dispute that services of the petitioner were dis-continued / terminated on 31.01.2007. He, however, submits that respondent herein was appointed as Chemical Analyst and he was doing supervisory work, therefore, does not fall within the definition of workman as defined under Section 2 (z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.K. Maini Vs. M/s Carona Sahu Company Limited and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 1824 . 3. Let me now examine as to whether respondent herein falls within the definition of workman as defined under Section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 4. Section 2(z) of the Act reads as under :- “(z) 'Workman' means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical 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 connexion 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 Army Act, 1950 or the Air Force Act, 1950, or the Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934; 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 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.” 5. As per sub-section (iv) of Section 2(z) of the Act, an employee in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercising the nature of duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature shall not fall within the definition of workman. 6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.K. Maini (Supra), in paragraph 9 has held as under:- “The determinative factor is the main duties of the employee concerned and not some works incidentally done. In other words, what is, in substance, the work which employee does or what in substance he is employed to do. Viewed from this angle, if the employee is mainly doing supervisory work but incidentally or for a fraction of time also does some manual or clerical work, the employee should be held to be doing supervisory works. Conversely, if the main work is of manual, clerical or of technical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory or other work is also done by the employee incidentally or only a small fraction of working time is devoted to some supervisory works, the employee will come within the purview of ’workman’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.” 7. As per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court determinative factor is the main duties of the concerned employee and not some works incidentally done. If the main work is of manual, clerical or of technical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory or other work is also done by the employee incidentally or only a small fraction of working time is devoted to some supervisory works, the employee will not come within the purview of workman. 8. There is no dispute that respondent herein was employed as Chemical Analyst. His main duties was to analyze the chemical reaching to the factory and hand over to the manufacturing department and thereafter duty of manufacturing department starts for the manufacturing of the salt. Merely because respondent herein after doing the chemical analyzing of the salt under his supervision passing the material to the manufacturing department does not mean that his main work was supervisory in nature. His main work was to chemically analyze the salt reaching to the factory. Therefore, supervision is incidental and main job was chemical analysis. 9. Merely because respondent herein after doing the chemical analyzing of the salt under his supervision passing the material to the manufacturing department does not mean that his main work was supervisory in nature. His main work was to chemically analyze the salt reaching to the factory. Therefore, supervision is incidental and main job was chemical analysis. 9. Consequently, in view of the definition of workman under Section 2 (z) of the Act read with dictum of the Apex Court in the case of S.K. Maini (Supra), respondent is held to be workman. 10. Since respondent is held to be workman and his services were terminated without following procedure of Section 6-N of the Act, therefore, termination cannot be said to be valid and is in violation of Section 6-N of the Act. 11. In view of the above, I do not find any fault in the award passed by the learned Labour Court. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.