JUDGMENT Mr. Jasbir Singh, J.: (Oral) - This application viz. Civil Misc. No. 769-LPA of 2014 has been filed to condone delay of 333 days in filing the appeal. Contents of the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes out no case for condonation of delay. However, even then we took up the matter to decide it on merits. 2. Appellant entered into service with the Punjab State Federation of Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited (In Short “CONSTOFED”) in the year 1965 as a Clerk. He was promoted as Field Supervisor on 15.10.1973. Thereafter, he was transferred on 21.11.1981. He was served with a charge sheet on 14.7.1982. After conducting regular enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 7.12.1982. The appellant availed statutory remedy of appeal against order of his dismissal which was dismissed. He went in revision as per the provisions of Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (In short “1961 Act”) which was also dismissed. He kept mum for few years and thereafter raised an industrial dispute in the year 1990. The matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh (In short “the Tribunal”). After taking note of the evidence led on record by both the parties, vide award dated 11.3.2010, claim raised by the appellant was rejected. It was noticed as a matter of fact that the appellant was not a workman and it was not open for him to raise dispute in terms of the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (In short “1947 Act”). In that regard it was observed as under:- “9. After considering the submissions of the learned representative for the parties, I am of the view that it depends upon the nature of duties whether a person is workman or not as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. To prove the same it must be established that he performs skilled, unskilled manual supervisory, technical and clerical work or for higher or reward. The nomenclature of designation of the person is meaningless. Shri Amarjit Singh was Incharge of Dal and Allied Mill situated at Ludhiana. Four to five persons were working there. Out of them two were Chowkidars. One Godown Keeper and one Mistary. There was Field Officer and Accounts Officers. The claimant-workman admitted in the cross-examination that he was supervising producing in the mill. Shri Amarjit Singh was Incharge of Dal and Allied Mill situated at Ludhiana. Four to five persons were working there. Out of them two were Chowkidars. One Godown Keeper and one Mistary. There was Field Officer and Accounts Officers. The claimant-workman admitted in the cross-examination that he was supervising producing in the mill. He used to take work from staff working in mill. There were two three machines in the mill. He also admitted that break down of machine was being repaired from Mistary by him. He worked in Dal Mill for six seven months. He used to keep casual labour for two three days and accordingly make payment to them. He used to engage the workmen on exigency of work. There are also one Clerk/Godown Keeper working independently. The claimant himself proved the letter, copy of which is Exhibit “WX”, wherein it is written that Shri Amarjit Singh-Field Officer, Ludhiana will be incharge of CONSTOFED Dal and Allied Mill, Ludhiana. The claimant has not denied about the working on the said post so nonproduction of charge taking report by the management is without any significant. In the cross-examination, the claimantworkman himself admitted that he himself supervised the production of mill. A suggestion was given to MW1 that Shri Amarjit Singh never took the charge of Dal plaint in pursuance of order Exhibit “WX”. Order Exhibit “WX” was put to MW1 by the claimant himself. It is not the case of the claimant that he was not working in Dal mill so I am of the view that it is proved that he was given charge as Incharge of Dal plaint. He was supervising the production in Dal mill and was managing the Dal plaint. In addition to that he was also Incharge of Warehouse. The claimant-workman also admitted that he was supplying clothes, dals to societies who used to visit him personally. From the evidence on the file it is proved that the claimant-workman was working in managerial, supervisory and clerical capacity. He was getting salary of Rs.10,073./30 at the time of dismissal from service so the claimant is not proved to be workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. In case S.K.Maini Versus M/s Carona Sahu Company Limited and Others (supra) it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the Shop Manager/Incharge of a local shop of company is not a workman. In case S.K.Maini Versus M/s Carona Sahu Company Limited and Others (supra) it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the Shop Manager/Incharge of a local shop of company is not a workman. Either incidentally he is required to do some clerical work or is not vested with power to appointment or discharge employees under him. In the light of above discussion, claimant is not proved to be workman so this issue is decided against the claimant and in favour of the management.” 3. It was noted as a matter of fact that the appellant had been working in a supervisory capacity. 4. The above award was challenged before this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 1158 of 2011 which was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 9.1.2013. Hence, this appeal. 5. The learned Single Judge has reiterated the finding given by the Tribunal that the appellant had been working in a supervisory capacity and as such he cannot be termed as a workman. By noting evidence, found on record, it was observed as under:- “Once the petitioner admitted as correct that he supervised the production in the Mill and used to take work from the staff, when admittedly during his tenure there was no General Manager available, no error can be found in the finding returned by the Labour Court that the petitioner was not a workman by definition. His duties in the Mill fell clearly on the side of management and not labour. It becomes immaterial that he had no power to sanction leave of employees. If he had a right to engage workers on the basis of exigencies of work conferred by the management either in writing or tacitly, he was identifiable as part of management. He was the face of the management in the Mill in the absence of the General Manager for long and was performing work mainly of a managerial or administrative capacity falling in exception (iii) to Section 2 (s) of the Act. The totality of factors on record command me to take this view as the only plausible one and would tilt the balance against him. The petitioner is not a workman, and therefore had no industrial rights under the Act to protect him.” 6. To give above said finding, reference was made to the crossexamination of the appellant before the Labour Court. The petitioner is not a workman, and therefore had no industrial rights under the Act to protect him.” 6. To give above said finding, reference was made to the crossexamination of the appellant before the Labour Court. It was also noted against the appellant that once he availed statutory remedy of appeal and revision, it was not open for him to raise dispute before the Tribunal. 7. No case is made out to cause interference by this Court in the present appeal. Hence, both Civil Misc. No. 769-LPA of 2014 for condonation of delay of 333 days in filing the appeal and Letters Patent Appeal No. 318 of 2014 are dismissed.