JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. I.A. No. 02/2019: 1. The present application under Section 17-B of the Act of 1947 has been rendered infructuous, its the respondent has attained the age of superannuation. 2. The application is dismissed having been rendered infructuous. I.A. No. 01/2019: 3. The matter has been placed for consideration of the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India also, by which the respondent has prayed that the interim order dated 14.08.2019 be vacated. 4. Apart from the contentions on the correctness of the findings of the Tribunal, fundamental issue of Tribunal's jurisdiction has also been raised in the present petition. 5. On 14.08.2019, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted interim order considering various submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, including that the respondent - Sushil Kumar, who was appointed as Supervisor and drawing salary of Rs. 45,000/- per month, cannot be treated to be workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1947) 6. Mr. Balia, learned Senior Counsel invited Court's attention towards the respondent's initial appointment order dated 24.09.1996 and highlighted that the respondent was appointed as Supervisor (Inspection/Testing). Thereafter he navigated the Court through Annexure-3, encapsulating the responsibilities of the respondent and highlighted that all the key activities which the respondent was required to discharge treads him out of sweep of the definition of ‘workman. 7. The Court's attention was also drawn towards the last salary slip (Annexure-7) in order to buttress his stand. He pointed out that not only the respondent's designation has been shown as Senior Service Engineer but also his salary has been shown as Rs. 45,000/- (more than the upper ceiling given under clause (iv) of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947) in a bid to bring home his argument that the respondent was not a ‘workman’ at any point of time. 8. Having invited Court's attention towards the documents aforesaid, learned Senior Counsel argued that the learned Labour Court has committed an error of law in not deciding petitioner's preliminary objection in accordance with law. 8. Having invited Court's attention towards the documents aforesaid, learned Senior Counsel argued that the learned Labour Court has committed an error of law in not deciding petitioner's preliminary objection in accordance with law. He argued that the Tribunal has held the respondent to be a workman, simply by recording a finding that there was no employee working under him and he had no authority to grant leave etc., which cannot be a decisive factor as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Maini v. Carona Sahu Company Ltd., (1994) 3 SCC 510 . 9. Per contra, Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that merely because the respondent's appointment order shows him to be a Supervisor, he cannot be treated to be a person other than a workman. He argued that according to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and other High Courts, the Tribunal/Court is required to examine the documentary and oral evidence to ascertain as to whether the claimant has worked as a Supervisor or in managerial capacity. 10. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the promotion order (Annexure-3) of the respondent, in which he has been shown as Senior Service Engineer/Service Engineer and argued that at the time of his termination, the respondent was Senior Service Engineer/Service Engineer and not Manager or Supervisor, neither any person was working under him nor was he having any supervisory role. He thus, argued that the respondent was covered by the definition of ‘workman’ and the claim filed by him was maintainable under the Act of 1947. 11. Learned counsel cited judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Pam Network Limited v. B. Balakrishna Nayak, (2011) 1 LLJ 596 , in order to give strength to his stand. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, more particularly, the appointment order dated 24.9.1996 (Annexure-2), whereby the respondent has been appointed as ‘Supervisor’ (Inspection/Testing), this Court is of the prima-facie view that the respondent having been appointed as a Supervisor, drawing a salary of Rs. 3,500/-, was not a workman as he was drawing salary of more than Rs. 1600/-. 13. When the respondent was terminated, he was working as Senior Service Engineer/Service Engineer and was getting salary of more than Rs. 45000/- and thus, he cannot be termed as a ‘workman’. 3,500/-, was not a workman as he was drawing salary of more than Rs. 1600/-. 13. When the respondent was terminated, he was working as Senior Service Engineer/Service Engineer and was getting salary of more than Rs. 45000/- and thus, he cannot be termed as a ‘workman’. 14. The moot question, which has been raised in the present writ petition is as to whether the respondent drawing salary of Rs. 45,000/- at the time of termination and working as Senior Service Engineer/Service Engineer can be treated to be a workman so as to be covered by the provisions of the Act of 1947? 15. For the present purpose, the definition of ‘workman’ given under Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 needs to be borne in mind, which is reproduced hereunder:— “2 ………. ………. (s) workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, 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— (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); 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 [ten thousand 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.” 16. A careful reading of the definition shows that it is a restrictive definition and not inclusive one. Not only the opening words of the definition, which uses expression “means” limits the scope, even the closing words makes the definition more restrictive by use of expression “does not include”. A careful reading of the definition shows that it is a restrictive definition and not inclusive one. Not only the opening words of the definition, which uses expression “means” limits the scope, even the closing words makes the definition more restrictive by use of expression “does not include”. If the nature of duties of employees used in the definition are taken into consideration, they are essentially meant for the personnel, working in lower rung of an industry. So far as personnel working on supervisory work are concerned, though they have been included, but their inclusion too has been capped on the basis of wages they draw (Rs. 1,600/- upto 15.09.2010 and Rs. 10,000/- thereafter, as the case may be). 17. Clause (iii) of the definition in no ambiguous terms excludes personnel working mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, while clause (iv) excludes the persons employed in supervisory capacity and draws wages exceeding Rs. 10,000/-. 18. It is noteworthy that even clause (iv) meant for persons employed in supervisory capacity also uses the expression “wages” and not salary. 19. It is only supervisor, which has been included in the definition of workman that too in the case where he draws salary less than Rs. 1600/- upto 15.09.2010 and less than Rs. 10,000/- thereafter. 20. In view of the aforesaid, in the prima-facie opinion of this Court, the respondent having worked as Senior Service Engineer/Service Engineer cannot be brought within the ambit of ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947. 21. Though various judgments have been cited by the rival counsel but the same are not exactly on the point involved in the present case. The question is of great significance and relates to the very jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain and decide case filed by the respondent and other persons alike him and thus, detailed hearing is required. 22. The application (I.A. No. 01/2019) is thus, rejected. 23. Admit. Issue notice. 24. Mr. R.S. Choudhary accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 11737/2019: 25. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on stay application. 26. The interim order dated 14.08.2019 passed by this Court is confirmed to last till disposal of the writ petition. 27. Stay application stands disposed of, accordingly.