Order : Management of M/s Usha Martin Limited is aggrieved by order dated 11.01.2007 and award dated 10.03.2010 in Reference Case no. 05 of 1998. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Assistant Manager, Security and Services on 09.04.1988 and he joined the petitionercompany on 15.07.1988. A letter of confirmation of service was issued on 27.11.1989 and the respondent was transferred from Jamshedpur to Ranchi on 08.10.1991. The respondent was promoted on the post of Deputy Manager, Security and Services with effect from 09.10.1991. Vide letter dated 29.10.1994 respondent's service was dispensed with in terms of Clause 7 of the appointment letter dated 09.04.1988. The respondent submitted representation dated 25.12.1994 for his reinstatement with full back wages. Since the dispute could not be resolved, the appropriate Government vide notification dated 13.06.1998 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court Jamshedpur. The Labour Court vide order dated 11.01.2007 held the respondent a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and award was made on 10.03.2010 directing reinstatement of the respondent with 50% back wages from 29.10.1994. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent's employment is governed by the appointment letter dated 09.04.1988 and his services were terminated in terms of Clause 7 of the appointment letter and therefore, it cannot be held that his termination was illegal. It is submitted that in view of overwhelming evidence produced by the petitioner-company, it is apparent that the respondent was working in a managerial capacity and thus, he is not covered under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that during proceeding in Reference Case No. 05 of 1998 one witness produced by the Management admitted that before the workman was terminated from service he was not discharging his services satisfactorily and thus, termination order would attach stigma to the workman. It is further submitted that the respondent was not charged for any misconduct and without holding enquiry, he has been terminated from service. Order of termination was issued by one Mr. R.K. Sontholia, working as president (works) who was not competent to issue letter of termination. 5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. Order of termination was issued by one Mr. R.K. Sontholia, working as president (works) who was not competent to issue letter of termination. 5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. In Reference Case No. 05 of 1998, the preliminary issue, “whether the employee Sri Braj Bhushan Bansal is workman or not?” was framed. The respondent contended that though, he was holding post of Deputy Manager, Security Services, the nature of the work and responsibility assigned were not managerial or administrative. On behalf of the Management, it was contended that the nature of duty of the respondent included, (i) to distribute security work amongst the Security Guards (ii) to supervise and manage services rendered by the Security Guards and, (iii) to sanction leave and overtime wages to the Security Guards. Relying on the appointment letter dated 09.04.1988, it was contended that the workman was holding a managerial and administrative post. The respondent examined two witnesses and on behalf of the Management four witnesses were examined. The Labour Court has noticed that except MW-4, other three witnesses examined on behalf of the Management supported the case of the Management that the workman was performing supervisory, managerial and administrative work. Witnesses have stated that about 4050 Security Guards were working in the Management and he used to distribute work, forward their leave application, letter of disciplinary action, increment etc. The Labour Court took note of the cross-examination of MW 1 whereunder, he accepted that the respondent was not head of the Security Department and he has no power to issue charge-sheet and to award punishment. Similarly, the Labour Court noticed that in their cross-examination other two witnesses deposed that they have not seen official order authorizing the respondent granting payment, promotion or sanction for overtime. The witnesses further stated that they have not seen any paper authorising the respondent to distribute work amongst the Security Guards however, the Management produced exhibit M which discloses a report by the respondent against one Security Guard for initiating disciplinary action against him. The respondent examined himself as W.W. 1 and the witness W.W. 2 has deposed that the respondent was not working in a supervisory and managerial capacity. The Labour Court decided the preliminary issue in favour of the respondent. The respondent examined himself as W.W. 1 and the witness W.W. 2 has deposed that the respondent was not working in a supervisory and managerial capacity. The Labour Court decided the preliminary issue in favour of the respondent. I find that the Labour Court has observed that undue importance need not be given for the designation of an employee rather it has to be seen what was the primary duty, the workman performs. I find that appointment letter dated 09.04.1988 recites “we welcome you as a Management Staff of our company.........”. The Labour Court has held that the said recital is not part of the appointment letter. am of the opinion that the appointment letter would only disclose the terms and conditions of the employment. The appointment letter discloses that the workman was to be governed by the rules and regulations of the company. Recital that the respondent was inducted as management staff would go to show that he was inducted in managerial capacity. The ground on which the evidence of the Management witnesses have been rejected, is palpably incorrect. The Management never contended that the respondent was authorized to sanction T.A. Bills, issue charge-sheet or to impose punishment or grant promotion. The specific case of the Management is that the respondent was entrusted to distribute security job amongst Security Guards and he supervised and managed services rendered by the Security Guards. Moreover, letter of the respondent recommending disciplinary action vide, exhibit M has not been denied by the respondent. I am of the opinion that the Labour Court misdirected itself in holding that the respondent is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. I find that the respondent has not denied appointment letter dated 09.04.1988. The appointment letter provides that his services would be terminated on one month's notice on either side however, the company may at its discretion pay one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice period. It is not contended on behalf of the respondent that he was not given one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice period. Letter dated 08.10.1991 by which the respondent was transferred from Jamshedpur to Ranchi records that all other terms and conditions of his employment shall remain the same. Letter dated 09.10.1991 also records that terms and conditions of his employment would remain unaltered. Letter dated 08.10.1991 by which the respondent was transferred from Jamshedpur to Ranchi records that all other terms and conditions of his employment shall remain the same. Letter dated 09.10.1991 also records that terms and conditions of his employment would remain unaltered. Before the Labour Court it was contended on behalf of the respondent that he was not charged for any misconduct and no enquiry was conducted before he was terminated from service. The said contention of the respondent found favour with Labour Court and accordingly, the Labour Court held that termination of the services of the respondent was neither proper nor justified. I am of the opinion that in view of Clause 7 in appointment letter dated 09.04.1988, no enquiry was required to be conducted. Letter dated 29.10.1994 clearly states “the management regrets to inform you that your services are no longer required and are hereby terminated with immediate effect as per Clause 7 of your letter of appointment dated 09.04.1988 and subsequent letter of confirmation dated 27.11.1989.” It is not the case of the respondent that he was victimized by the Management and letter dated 29.10.1994 is by way of penalty. In view of the reason disclosed in letter dated 29.10.1994, I am of the opinion that no enquiry was required to be conducted. Since, no misconduct has been alleged against the respondent, a charge-sheet could not have been issued nor a departmental enquiry could have been conducted. I find that the Labour Court seriously erred in law in holding termination letter dated 29.10.1994 illegal on the ground that without issuing a charge-sheet and without conducting an enquiry, the respondent could not have been terminated from service. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition stands allowed. Order dated 11.01.2007 and Award dated 10.03.2010 are hereby quashed. Consequently, I.A. Nos. 1875 of 2012 and 373 of 2015 also stand disposed of.