JUDGMENT : (Navneet Kumar, J.) : This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 13th September 2023 passed in W.P.(L) No. 4527 of 2018 whereby and where under the writ petition filed by the respondent/ writ petitioner – The Food Corporation of India challenging the award dated 15.01.2018 has been allowed. 2. Briefly stated, the writ petitioner/ respondent-The Food Corporation of India had preferred the writ petition challenging the award dated 15th January 2018 whereby the action of the respondent – Corporation in dismissing the complainant/appellant herein - Upendra Prasad with forfeiture of post-retirement benefits including gratuity dated 30th November 2012 and the order of the appellate authority dated 1st May 2013 confirming the punishment were held to be illegal and unjustified. The respondent-Corporation was further directed to pay full back wages to the complainant/ appellant herein- Upendra Ram as well as other benefits including gratuity after effecting reduction of two increments in order to maintain parity as his co-delinquent whose case has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 22573 of 2015 and the directions were to be implemented within a period of one month from the date of publication of award in the Gazette of India. 3. Being aggrieved, writ petitioner/respondent-Corporation preferred the instant writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 4527 of 2018 with the following prayer: I. For issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing and/or setting aside the award dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure-15) passed by Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran, the Learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad in Complaint Case no. 3/2013a, whereby the punishment order against the Respondent has been set aside with a direction that the Respondent would be entitled to full back wages including gratuity after reduction of two increments. II. For issuance of writ of certiorari for also quashing order dated 03.02.2017 (Annexure-10) passed by Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran, the Learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Complaint Case no. 3/2013, whereby the Disciplinary Enquiry conducted against the respondent has been held to be unfair and improper on the grounds of change of Enquiry Officer and perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Report. III. 3/2013, whereby the Disciplinary Enquiry conducted against the respondent has been held to be unfair and improper on the grounds of change of Enquiry Officer and perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Report. III. For issuance of any other appropriate writ/order/direction for grant of such other reliefs as may be incidental or consequential to or connected with setting aside of the aforesaid impugned order and for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner. IV. For issuance of direction to stay the operation of the impugned award dated 15.01.2018 during pendency of the instant writ petition. 4. The learned writ Court after hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment dated 13th September 2023 relying upon the judgment dated 4th August 2023 rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 446 of 2019 allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and the award dated 15th January 2018 was quashed and set aside holding as under: 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this Court; in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.446 of 2019 wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench in no uncertain manner has held that the Assistant Grade-I (D) of the petitioner- Food Corporation of India is not a workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I, Dhanbad has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint No.3/2013 filed under Section 33 (A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as the complainant before it was not a workman in terms of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Hence, the impugned award dated 15.01.2018 passed in Complaint Case No.3/2013 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I, Dhanbad is without jurisdiction. Hence, the same is set aside. 8. Keeping in view the facts of the case, the respondent is accorded liberty to file a statutory review subject to the limitation to be decided by a competent authority against the appellate order passed by the Managing Director, Food Corporation of India. 9. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.” 5. Being aggrieved with the order of the writ Court, the complainant- Appellant Upendra Prasad is before this Court in the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 9. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.” 5. Being aggrieved with the order of the writ Court, the complainant- Appellant Upendra Prasad is before this Court in the instant Letters Patent Appeal. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant 6. Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned writ Court is bad in law and is liable to be set aside since the learned Single Judge erred in law and fact. The respondent –Corporation has lost sight of the fact that appellant has no administrative, supervisory or managerial power to take him out of the purview of the definition of ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act. The appellant cannot take any independent decision, rather his only duty is to maintain the daily receipt and issue register of food grain, making him essentially a store clerk and hence a workman within the meaning of the Act. The learned Tribunal after going through the appointment letter of the appellant and after taking into consideration the nature of his duties had rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. Therefore, the action of the respondent authorities in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the appellant without seeking approval as required under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute Act is illegal and arbitrary. However, the writ Court did not also take into consideration the fact that the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner, and, therefore, the entire action stood vitiated. Arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Nipun Bakshi, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the instant Letters Patent Appeal has no merit inasmuch as the rulings and the observations of the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 446 of 2019 under which this appellant has been held to be not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 22595 of 2023. 8. Having heard the parties perused the record of the appeal. 9. 22595 of 2023. 8. Having heard the parties perused the record of the appeal. 9. It is manifest from the impugned judgment dated 13.09.2023 passed by the writ Court that the judgment dated 4th August 2023 passed in L.P.A. No. 446 of 2019 by the learned Division Bench of this Court has been relied upon where it has been held that in view of admitted position that the appellant –respondent Upendra Prasad being the Assistant Grade-I (D) was not a workman in the writ petitioner- Corporation within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and as such the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint Case No. 3 of 2013 filed under section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) inasmuch as the appellant-respondent was not a workman and hence the award dated 15th January 2018 was quashed and set aside. Further, it is found that the learned Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid L.P.A. No. 446 of 2019 in its order dated 4th August 2023 under the circumstances of the case elaborately discussed the relevant provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and, inter alia, framed a specific issue as to whether the Assistant Grade-I(Depot) in the Food Corporation of India is a workman under ‘the Act’ or not and referring the various rulings and findings of the various case laws including Food Corporation of India Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2014 IV LLJ 715] and Burmah Sheel Oil Storage & Distribution Company of India Limited Vs. The Burma Sheel Management Staff Association & Ors. [ 1970(3) SCC 378 ] and relied on paragraph nos. 33 to 35 of the judgment rendered in the case of Burmah Sheel(supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “3. Depot Superintendents 33. With regard to the classification of Depot Superintendents reliance; was placed by the Association on the evidence of G.B. Athalye, and on some decisions in respect of Depot Superintendents of this very Company in other regions. After considering the evidence of Athalye and the Company's witnesses, the Tribunal, as a fact, held that a Depot Superintendent is Incharge of all the stocks at a depot and his principal duty is to see that these stocks arc properly received, stored and sent out. After considering the evidence of Athalye and the Company's witnesses, the Tribunal, as a fact, held that a Depot Superintendent is Incharge of all the stocks at a depot and his principal duty is to see that these stocks arc properly received, stored and sent out. These, stocks range in value between Rs 4 lakhs to Rs 6 lakhs. The Tribunal found that a Depot Superintendent has a complement of men working under him, the strength of which may vary from Depot to Depot. On an average, the persons employed are 5 to 7 out of whom 2 would be clerks, 3 to 4 would be workmen and one or two drivers. The Depot Superintendent has to get all the jobs done by these men and he guides them in their work. He is the senior most officer at the Depot. He is not required to have any technical background. He allocates the work to the men working under him and sanctions leave to them. He is empowered to engage casual” labour. He takes a review of the position of the strength prevailing and makes recommendations about the required strength. Within the area which is served by the Depot, the Depot Superintendent plans and delivers the necessary supply. He can take decision regarding overtime work of the staff subordinate to him. He has to maintain discipline and has to report cases of indiscipline to the Head Office. Sometimes, he is empowered to hold inquiry in cases of indiscipline. Cases of minor indiscipline can be dealt by himself. In addition, the Depot Superintendent functions as Factory Manager under the Factories Act and also under the Shops and Establishments Act. The Depot Superintendent does the merit-rating of the clerks working under him. He also represents the management to some extent before outsiders. He is authorised to spend amounts within prescribed limits on behalf of the Company. He represents the Company and the Depot in dealings with the Railway and Municipal authorities. Of course, while carrying on these duties, he has also to ensure that the stock registers are properly maintained. Where there is a clerk, the actual work of writing is done by the clerk; but, where there is no clerk, the Depot Superintendent may himself have to do all the writing work. Of course, while carrying on these duties, he has also to ensure that the stock registers are properly maintained. Where there is a clerk, the actual work of writing is done by the clerk; but, where there is no clerk, the Depot Superintendent may himself have to do all the writing work. The writing work done by the Depot Superintendent cannot be treated to be the substantial and main duty entrusted to him. On the facts enumerated above, it is quite clear that his principal duties are of a supervisory and managerial nature, while the clerical duties are only incidental. 34. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India. Ltd., Madras v. Employees [(1954) 1 LLJ 21]. In that case, it appears that the Depot Superintendent was found to be comparable with a mere store-keeper. The Depot Superintendent, in most cases, was the only person posted at the Depot and, in very few cases, a clerk was given to assist him. It was found that the Depot Superintendent himself had to maintain the correspondence, and was responsible for stock receipt, storage and issue. He had to remain busy most of the time with completing Company's standard forms and returns, and he had no powers of supervision over other members of the staff. On these facts, the Labour Appellate Tribunal held that his job was substantially of that of an intelligent and skilled clerk. This decision was upheld by the Madras High Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India, Ltd., Madras v. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India [(1954) 2 LLJ 155] when the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal was challenged by means of a writ. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. These two decisions can be of no help, because the Depot Superintendents, with whom we are concerned, work under very different conditions. They are in charge of large depots and have, on an average, 5 to 7 employees working under them. The amount of clerical work done by them is only a minor part of their duties, while the principal duty is that of working as Manager of the Depot and of supervising the work of the subordinates posted there. 35. They are in charge of large depots and have, on an average, 5 to 7 employees working under them. The amount of clerical work done by them is only a minor part of their duties, while the principal duty is that of working as Manager of the Depot and of supervising the work of the subordinates posted there. 35. As against these cases, there are two decisions of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India. Ltd., Madras and Hyderabad Branches v. Workmen [(1955) 2 LLJ 153], and Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India, Ltd., Madras Branch, Mysore and Travancore-Cochin States v. Workmen [(1955) 2 LLJ 228] in which the Labour Appellate Tribunal, after examining the evidence in detail, came to the view that the principal and substantial work done by a Depot Superintendent was administrative or supervisory and that the clerical work done was merely incidental. The facts of these two cases resemble more the facts found by the Tribunal in the case before us. Consequently, the decision given by the Tribunal that Depot Superintendents are employed on managerial or supervisory work and are not workmen is correct, because they all also draw a salary in excess of Rs 500 per mensem.” 10. Further, it is found that the learned Division Bench of this Court having discussed the aforesaid case laws came to the following conclusion as appreciated by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order at paragraph nos. 36 and 37 : “36. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case and the work assigned to Assistant Grade-I (D), in which the respondent was working at the relevant point of time, through the circular dated 30.10.1996, this Court has no doubt that the appellant was working in the supervisory capacity and was assigned the work of supervision and control over the Assistant Grade-II (D) and Assistant Grade-III (D) while performing their duties. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that the respondent cannot said to be a workman under Section 2(s) of the aforesaid Act. 37. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that the respondent cannot said to be a workman under Section 2(s) of the aforesaid Act. 37. In view of the finding of this Court that the respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the aforesaid Act at the relevant point of time, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 20.09.2016 deciding the preliminary issue as well as the impugned final award cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and accordingly, they are set-aside.” 11. In the backdrop of the aforesaid observations and the findings by the learned Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 446 of 2019, it is found that there is no error in the impugned judgment dated 13th September 2023. Further, it is also evident that the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 446 of 2019 was under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 22595 of 2023, which was also dismissed and thus the findings and observations made by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 446 of 2019 shall bind the FCI as regards the reference-posts. 12. In this view of the matter, the instant Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.