ORDER : The petitioner has filed this miscellaneous petition being aggrieved of the award dated 28.06.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court, Sagar in C.O.C.A. No.127/2017/I.D. Act Reference, rejecting the claim of the petitioner in regard to his dismissal/retrenchment from services on the ground that a Junior Field Medical Officer will not be covered within the definition of "workmen" as given in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity "I.D. Act"). 2. Shri Utkarsh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the judgment against him is rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Employees' State Insurance Corporation's Medical Officer's Association Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and another , (2014) 16 SCC 182 , wherein it is held that doctors discharging functions of medical officers i.e. treating patients in ESI dispensaries/hospitals are not "workmen". However, he submits that petitioner is not a doctor. His case will be squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S.K. Maini Vs. M/s Carona Sahu Company Limited and others , (1994) 3 SCC 510 , wherein in para 9 it is held that "The designation of an employee is not of much importance and what is important is the nature of duties being performed by the employee. 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." 3. Similarly, reliance is placed on another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lenin Kumar Ray Vs. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd., 2024 SCC Online SC 2987, wherein in paragraph 15 it is held that "The law is well settled that the determinative factor for “workman” covered under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, is the principal duties and functions performed by an employee in the establishment and not merely the designation of his post. Further, the onus of proving the nature of employment rests on the person claiming to be a “workman” within the definition of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act." 4. Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and submits that he would still be pressing the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Employees' State Insurance Corporation's Medical Officer's Association (supra). 5. Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer and submits that he would still be pressing the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Employees' State Insurance Corporation's Medical Officer's Association (supra). 5. Shri Utkarsh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Ex.P-1, which is the appointment letter of the petitioner on the post of Dresser. Later on, petitioner was treated as a regular Dresser and vide Ex.P-6, he was given designation of Junior Field Medical Officer in Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd. and his duties are enumerated in his initial appointment order to be that of working as a Dresser/Compounder, inasmuch as, it is mentioned in the communication dated July 24, 1999 that he was working as a Dresser and had effectively treated all the patients competently including providing of stitches, without the help of Doctor. He is very sincere and take keen interest in the job. 6. Thus, it is evident that the work experience of the petitioner is that of a Dresser/Compounder which is in fact a non-gazetted work and non- supervisory work, which will fall under the definition "workman" as defined under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act. Therefore, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Employees' State Insurance Corporation's Medical Officer's Association (supra) is distinguishable because there Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case of the doctors, their duties and professional ethics and not with that of a Compounder/Dresser. Thus, when tested in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K. Maini (supra) and Lenin Kumar Ray (supra), designation will not matter, but the nature of the duties will be applicable, impugned award cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It is hereby set aside. Matter is remitted to the concerned Industrial Court for decision on the claims of the petitioner on merits. 7. In above terms, the miscellaneous petition is disposed of.