ORDER : ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J. The petitioner appearing in person is assailing the order dated 30.12.2023 in I.D. No.6/2020 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. In terms of the impugned order, the Labour Court has held that the petitioner is not a ‘Workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘Act of 1947’). Consequently, the Labour Court has held that the reference is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. 2. Certain facts necessary for adjudication of the dispute are referred to below. 3. Petitioner joined the respondent-Establishment in the year 2018 as Pool Manager. The respondent is running an aquatic centre which has a swimming school. The appointment letter dated 03.12.2018, apart from revealing his total pay of Rs.47,800/- which includes basic pay of Rs.21,510/- would also reveal the duties to be performed by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, alleging that on 02.11.2019 he was forced to submit resignation letter as the management threatened that the petitioner will be terminated from employment, if the resignation is not tendered. The representation submitted by the petitioner raising industrial dispute was referred for conciliation and conciliation having failed, the Conciliation Officer issued an endorsement enabling the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute. 5. The petitioner approached the Labour Court under Section 10(4-A) of Act, 1947. Petitioner filed an interim application seeking sustenance allowance. The Labour Court granted 50% of the last drawn salary as sustenance allowance which was questioned before this Court by the respondent- Establishment. The petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court to decide the question relating to the maintainability of the industrial dispute as a preliminary issue. 6. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.335/2023 filed by the workman modified the order of the learned single Judge and directed the Labour Court to decide the preliminary issue within two months and confirmed the rest of the order. 7. Before the Labour Court, the parties led evidence on the preliminary issue to substantiate their respective contentions and the Labour Court concluded that the petitioner is not a workman and accordingly, dismissed the petition. 8. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner is before this Court. 9. 7. Before the Labour Court, the parties led evidence on the preliminary issue to substantiate their respective contentions and the Labour Court concluded that the petitioner is not a workman and accordingly, dismissed the petition. 8. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioner is before this Court. 9. The petitioner (party in person) referring to various e-mails and other documents placed before the Labour Court would urge that, the Labour Court committed error in holding that the petitioner is not a workman. The petitioner submits that he never performed the managerial acts though he is designated as a Pool Manager. 10. Petitioner contends that he was doing the clerical works and none reported to him. He had no decision making power and was reporting to the head of the management and from his job profile, it is evident that the petitioner is a workman and was neither having a role of a manager nor a supervisor. It is also submitted that though his designation was Pool Manager, he was not the coach and did not do any managerial, administrative or supervisory work and the Labour Court erred in holding that the petitioner is not a workman. 11. In support of his contention the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) M/s Pam Networks Ltd vs Sri.B.Balakrishna, ILR 2010 KAR 3539 (ii) Lyka Lab Limited Vs Aiyubbhai Valibhai Patel (High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad), R/Letters Patent Appeal No.948/2022 In R/Special Civil Application No.15457/2008 (iii) Lloyds Bank Ltd. Vs. Panna Lal Gupta and others, AIR 1967 SC 428 (iv) National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. Sri.Kishan Bhageria and others, 1988 (Supp) SCC 82 (v) Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers’ Union Ltd. Vs. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah ., 2006 (6) SCC 548 (vi) V.P.Ahuja vs. State of Punjab and others , 2000 (3) SCC 239 (vii) M/s Canara Lighting Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Merlyn Sujatha.K , WP. NO.4325/2021 (High Court of Karnataka) (viii) Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and others., 2013 (10) SCC 324 (ix) K.V.Shankar vs. Management of G W Precision Tools Pvt. Ltd. , WP NO.7643/2012 (High Court of Karnataka) (x) Kalappa vs. Divisional Controller, NEKRTC , WP NO.205541/2019 (High Court of Karnataka) 12. Learned Senior counsel Sri M.R.C.Ravi appearing for the respondents would defend the impugned order. Learned Senior counsel Sri M.R.C.Ravi appearing for the respondents would defend the impugned order. It is urged that the petitioner was required to carry out day to day activities of the pool and petitioner had the authority to arrange meeting schedules, sanction leave to various workmen under the respondents, and petitioner had control over various employees and taking all these aspects into consideration, the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a workman. 13. It is also urged that the appointment letter would disclose his designation as Pool Manager and he was paid a salary of Rs.47,800/- and the petitioner was doing both managerial as well as administrative work as defined under Section 2(s)(iii) of Act, 1947. 14. Learned Senior counsel would also urge that the employees of the respondent had to submit leave application to the petitioner. The petitioner used to fix meetings, assign workmen with various assignments and made appropriate alternative arrangements whenever the employees who are assigned a particular duty could not attend to the assigned duty. 15. Referring to paragraph No.3 extracted below, learned senior counsel would urge that a person who is assigned with the “task of running day to day activities of the school” cannot claim to be the workman and by necessary implication the petitioner would be either in the managerial or administrative post. In this context, the designation as pool manager would certainly take the petitioner out of the ambit of definition of workman is the submission. 16. In support of the contentions learned Senior counsel for the respondents also relied on the following judgments: 1. N.Bhuvaneshwari v. Management of M/s Ambuthirtha Power Pvt. Ltd. , 2024 SCC Online Kar 8645 2. Bharti Airtel Limited v. A.S Raghavendra , (2024) 6 SCC 418 3. Lenin Kumar Ray v. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. , 2024 SCC Online SC 2987 4. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd. v. The Burma Shell Management Staff Association and others , (1970) 3 SCC 378 5. S.K.Maini v. M/s Carona Sahu Company Limited and others , (1994) 3 SCC 510 6. K. Hanumantharayappa v. Management of Indian Express (P.) Ltd. & Anr. , 2012 SCC Online Kar 8846 7. Harish Ghularam Zode v. Managing Director, Vaccum Plant and Instruments Manufacturing Company (P.) Ltd., Pune & Ors. , 2000 (1) LLN 509 8. S.K.Maini v. M/s Carona Sahu Company Limited and others , (1994) 3 SCC 510 6. K. Hanumantharayappa v. Management of Indian Express (P.) Ltd. & Anr. , 2012 SCC Online Kar 8846 7. Harish Ghularam Zode v. Managing Director, Vaccum Plant and Instruments Manufacturing Company (P.) Ltd., Pune & Ors. , 2000 (1) LLN 509 8. Sagari Leathers (Private) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (IV), Agra & Ors. , 2006 (4) LLN 811 9. Tata Sons Ltd. v. S. Bandyopadhyay , 2004 (73) DRJ 553 17. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 18. The Court has also considered the judgments cited by both sides. The well established principles governing the question whether an employee is a workman or not is reiterated in the aforementioned judgments in the fact situations obtained in the aforementioned cases. The Court has borne in mind the ratio laid down in the aforementioned judgments and has proceeded to consider the following question. 19. “Whether the petitioner is a workman or not?” 20. Whether a person is a workman or not is to be ascertained from the nature of the duty carried out by the employee and it is not necessarily dependent on the designation of the employee or the salary paid to the employee. The salary would be one of the criteria, if the employee is the supervisor. 21. The letter of employment disclosing the nature of duties is also one of the important aspects which is to be taken into consideration. 22. The said paragraph No.3 of the appointment order reads as under: “Your duties will be allocated by the management from time to time. We expect full cooperation from you in this regard, in the running of day-to-day activities of the school. If need be, you will also be expected to cooperate and participate in other duties that might not be technically a part of your job profile, but would be for the purpose of achieving the common goals of the institution.” 23. From the Clause, found in paragraph No.3 it is noticed that the Management expected co-operation in running the day to day activities of the school. 24. From the Clause, found in paragraph No.3 it is noticed that the Management expected co-operation in running the day to day activities of the school. 24. The second part of Clause No.3 would indicate that in addition to extending full cooperation in the running of day-to-day activities of the school, the employee may also be required to perform any other job which may be assigned by the Management. 25. From the above Clause, one may not be able to conclude the petitioner was entrusted with the managerial or administrative responsibility. What are the instructions or responsibilities given to the petitioner thereafter would define the status of the petitioner. This being the position, the Court has to look into the other materials that are placed before the Labour Court. 26. On going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioner was entrusted with the following duties which according to the petitioner would place him under category of workman. (a) Cleaning and maintaining the pool. (b) Maintaining files and records. (c) Sending the report of swimming pool activities to the management. (d) Displaying notice on the notice board. (e) Typing (f) Shifting and arranging chairs and tables. (g) Arranging pool equipments. (h) Inspecting and verifying the tiles on the floor of the pool by diving deep into the water. (i) Following up the instructions of the superiors. 27. The respondent-Establishment in support of their contention that the petitioner is not a workman refers to following factors and duties: (a) Petitioner’s monthly salary was Rs.47,000/- (b) Petitioner was in-charge of all operations of the pool. (c) Admission and renewal of swimmers. (d) Assisting in conducting in-house competitions. (e) Communicating with swimmers and the parents. (f) Monitoring the swimmers while they are in pool. (g) Maintenance of records. (h) Signing cash vouchers and invoices for orders, purchases. (i) Endorsing the attendance of other employees. (j) Arranging meetings. (k) Signing minutes of the meetings. (l) Endorsing on the leave applications. 28. Petitioner has produced certain e-mail correspondence. It is seen from the e-mail correspondence that, petitioner is seeking approval for some of the schedules he has fixed pursuant to the decisions taken by him in connection with the work assigned to him. From these e-mails, one can conclude that the petitioner fixed the schedules for certain events and sought approval. This would indicate that schedules are fixed by the petitioner. From these e-mails, one can conclude that the petitioner fixed the schedules for certain events and sought approval. This would indicate that schedules are fixed by the petitioner. Merely because he is required to take the approval does not make the job clerical. The petitioner has fixed the schedules which would indicate application of mind and this forms part of the administrative work. Merely because he is also required to seek approval for the schedule fixed by him, one cannot conclude that he had no authority to fix the schedule. May be the approval is required to ensure that others in the establishment are available on the dates fixed by the petitioner. 29. The petitioner has also referred to the cross examination of the witness examined on behalf of the management wherein it is elicited that, no communication is addressed to any employees to seek leave from the petitioner. This admission is extracted in the context of the contention of the management that the petitioner used to sanction leave to the other employees of the respondents. 30. It is indeed true that no communication is placed by the Management informing other employees to submit the leave application to the petitioner. However, what is relevant to notice is the Management has produced 98 leave applications and all of them are signed by the petitioner. It is noticed that in two leave applications, the petitioner has signed as reporting head and in all other applications his signature is found above the caption PM Signature. PM would mean the Pool Manager. 31. The part of the leave application where Pool Manager has signed is meant for office use. There the petitioner (Pool Manager) is required to mention the number of days of leave available; number of leave availed and balance leave remaining. It is not clear as to who would sanction leave. However, it appears that reporting head is required to sanction leave and the Pool Manager is required to mention the particulars referred to above. 32. The petitioner contended that he was only doing a clerical job by forwarding the leave application to the superior. The format of the leave application indicates that the petitioner is required to apply his mind and fill the particulars relating to the leave available, leave availed and balance leave. This part of the work can also be termed as administrative work. 33. The format of the leave application indicates that the petitioner is required to apply his mind and fill the particulars relating to the leave available, leave availed and balance leave. This part of the work can also be termed as administrative work. 33. It is elicited in the cross examination that the management has not authorized the petitioner to make salary payment to other employees. In the cross examination the petitioner has also extracted certain infirmities in the documents at Exs.M24 to M29 produced by the respondent-Establishment. 34. The respondent-Establishment has also produced records like attendance register, petty cash register, expense extracts. Some of the invoices are raised in the name of the petitioner by an entity called “Sagara Pools & Spas”. These invoices allegedly bear the signature of the petitioner. 35. The documents marked at Ex.M1, M.11 to M.17 and M.19 on behalf of the respondent would reveal that they are monthly reports of the employees of the respondent–Establishment which provide various particulars of the employees, relating to the number of working hours put in by the employees, the delay in reporting to duty, the shift during which they have worked, penalty if any imposed, the location of the work and few other details. These reports are signed by the petitioner which indicates that the petitioner was carrying out administrative work. 36. Ex.M2 to M.10 are the extracts of attendance register and the petitioner has signed the same. From the documents produced namely the attendance register and the monthly report, one can conclude that the petitioner was carrying out the administrative work. The documents at Ex.M.18 and M.21, M.22 are the petty cash expense details for February/March, August, September/October- 2019 respectively are signed by the petitioner which would indicate that the petitioner is the author of those documents. Though it appears that other two employees have also signed those documents, in the absence of any specific evidence as to in what capacity others have signed, the Court cannot brush aside the contention of the respondent-Establishment that the petitioner was entrusted with the responsibility more so, given the fact that few records like invoices marked at Ex.M133, M.134, M.135, M.136 and payment vouchers marked at Ex.C1 to C.11 bear the signature of the petitioner. 37. The Labour Court has considered these aspects and has concluded that the petitioner has held that the petitioner cannot be termed as a ‘workman’. 38. 37. The Labour Court has considered these aspects and has concluded that the petitioner has held that the petitioner cannot be termed as a ‘workman’. 38. The party in person has urged that the Labour Court erred in holding that the petitioner has not produced the records for having carried out the work like maintaining the files, sending the reports, displaying the notices on the notice board, doing typing work, shifting chairs and tables, diving deep into the waters. 39. The party in person urged that all the above tasks carried out by the petitioner are admitted in the cross-examination and the Labour Court could not have rejected the petitioner’s claim that he was a workman in the establishment. 40. It is the submission of the petitioner that the Labour Court having held that the above noted works are done by the workman, erred in holding that the petitioner has not produced the records to hold that petitioner was doing all the above noted tasks 41. It is indeed true that some of the aforementioned works said to have been done by the petitioner are established in the cross-examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent. However, the law in this regard is well-settled. Whether an employee is a workman or not cannot be decided with reference to a particular work or some of the works. The test is, the nature of the predominant work as can be noticed from the judgment cited by both sides referred to above. 42. Keeping in mind the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments, the Court is of the view that the petitioner predominantly was carrying out administrative job in the respondent-Establishment. Even if it is accepted that he had done some of the work which would have been ordinarily carried out by the workman that does not take away the petitioner’s predominant work which was administrative in nature. 43. Taking into consideration the role played by the petitioner as the ‘sole pool manager’ in the respondent- Establishment, the Court is of the view that the petitioner was playing active role in “running the day to day activities of the school” which he was required to do as per the terms of the employment. Thus, the role played by the petitioner has to be termed as an administrative role as urged by the respondent and held by the Labour Court. 44. Thus, the role played by the petitioner has to be termed as an administrative role as urged by the respondent and held by the Labour Court. 44. The Labour Court has taken into consideration all the relevant material facts and has rightly held that the petitioner is not a workman. 45. Before ending, this Court would place it on record that the party in person, though not an advocate has ably presented his case. 46. Hence, the following: ORDER (a) The Writ Petition is dismissed (b) The order dated 30.12.2023 in I.D.No.06/2020 on the file of II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore is confirmed. (c) The petitioner is at liberty to avail such remedy as available in law notwithstanding the dismissal of the Writ Petition as petitioner’s grievance is not yet adjudicated by the Competent Court/Forum. (d) In case the petitioner approaches the Competent Court/Forum, the Court/Forum shall consider the claim on merits and period of limitation if any, shall be excluded from the date of petitioner raising the dispute till this date.