12 November 1970
Supreme Court


Case number: Appeal (civil) 1477 of 1970






DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/11/1970


CITATION:  1971 AIR  922            1971 SCR  (2) 758  1970 SCC  (3) 378  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1988 SC 329  (6)  R          1991 SC2294  (3)

ACT: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 2(s)--’Workman’, tests for determining who is.

HEADNOTE: The   members   of  the  Burmah   Shell   Management   Staff Association, designated as junior management staff raised an industrial dispute.  The Government referred the dispute  to the Industrial Tribunal.  The reference was confined to  the members  of  he  junior  management  staff  working  in  the Maharashtra  region.   At the time of reference  the  lowest basic  salary drawn by a member of the Association  was  Rs. 535/-.  On behalf of the company a preliminary objection was raised  that  none of the members of the association  was  a workman.   The Tribunal gave an interim award.  The  members of the association were classified into various  categories. Out  of  these, members of six categories were  held  to  be workmen,   namely  (1)  Transport  Engineer   (2)   District Engineers    (3)   Foreman   (Chemicals),    (4)-    Fueling Superintendents  (5)  Chemists  and  (6)  Sales  Engineering Representatives.  Members belonging to four categories  were held not to be workmen, namely, (1) Blending Supervisors (2) Foremen  (3)Depot  Superintendents and  (4)  District  Sales Representatives.   The Company challenged the  decision  of’ the,  Tribunal in respect of the six categories held  to  be workmen  and  the  Association challenged  the  decision  in respect of the four categories held not to be workmen.   The Association  contended  that whenever a  technical  man  was employed in an industry it had to be held he was employed to do technical work respective of the manner in which and  the occasions  on which the technical knowledge of  that  person was  actually brought into use and to hold  otherwise  would result  in  making  the word ’technical’  redundant  in  the definition  of  workman’ in section 2(s) of  the  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as amended by Act 36 of 1956. HELD  : Of the members of six categories held to be  workmen (1)  Transport  Engineer (2) District Engineer  (3)  Foreman



(chemicals) and (4) Sales Engineering Representative must be held  not  to  be  workmen;  and  of  the  members  of  four categories  held not to be workmen, the tribunal erred  with respect  to  Blending Supervisors working  in  the  Wadilube plant. A workman must be held to be employed to do that work  which is the main work he is required to do, even though he may be incidentally  doing  other  types of  work.   Therefore,  in determining which of the employees in the various categories are  covered by the definition of ’workman, one has to  see what is the main or substantial work which they are employed to do. [766 C] May & Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1961] II  L.L.J. 94,  South Indian Bank Ltd. v. A.R. Chacko, [1964] 5  S.C.R. 625,  Analnda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen,  [1969] II  L.L.J.  670,  Re.  Dairymen’s Foremen  &  Re.   Tailors’ Cutters, (1911-12) 28 T.L.R. 587, Reid v. 75 9 British  and  Irish Stean Packet Co. Ltd., [1921]  2  K.B.D. 219, Jaques v. Owners of Steam Tug Alexendra, [1921] 2  A.C. 339, J. & F. Stone Lighting & Radio Ltd. v. Haygarth, [1968] A.C. Pt. 3, 157, referted to. (i)The  major part of the work done by a Transport  Engineer is that of supervision  of the work of repair,  maintenance, servicing  and fabrication which is actually carried  on  by mechanics,  fitters and other skilled  or  unskilled-workmen working under him.  Even if the Transport Engineer uses  his technical knowledge it is used primarily for the purpose  of supervislying the work done by the skilled manual labourers. If  a person is merely employed in supervising the  work  of others  the fact that for the purpose of proper  supervision he is required to have technical knowledge Till not  convert his supervisory work into technical work; the work of giving advice  and guidance cannot be held to be, an employment  to do technical work. (ii)The  principal  work for which a  District  Engineer  is employed  is  to supervise work done by  others  instead  of doing  the  work himself.  His duties consist  of  assessing suitability  of sites for depots from the point of  view  of technical  and-engineering aspects, suggesting  lay-out  for constructing  depots  or service stations, seeing  that  the estimates  prepared by the draughtsman are correct from  the technical   point   of  view,   scrutinising   tenders   for construction,  checking the’ construction work given to  the contractor,  certifying bills submitted by  contractors  for the   work  done  by  them  and  preparing   estimates   for maintenance in respect of depots.  Even though he has to use his technical knowledge for the purpose of property carrying on  supervision, it cannot be held that a District  Engineer is employed to do technical work. (iii)The  duties which are performed by Foreman  (Chemicals) are  primarily  and  substantially those  of  a  supervisory nature.  His own manual work is only incidental and forms  I a  small part of his duties. in dealing with this case,  the Tribunal erred in taking into account the duties of chemists. (iv) The   main  and  substantial  work  which  a   Fuelling Superintendent does is not that of supervising the work dose by  the  few workmen who assist him, but is his  own  manual work  which  he  carries out at the depot as  well  as  when delivering  oil to the aircraft.  The fact that  a  Fuelling Superintendent is a leader of the team which carries out the work  of  fuelling cannot convert his work into  that  of  a supervisory,nature.  The tribunal was, therefore, correct in holding that a Fuelling Superintendent was a workman.



(v)  The  Chemists,  no  doubt,  ensure  that  the   workman assisting them do their work Properly; but that small amount of  supervision  is only incidental to their  own  technical work of ’testing and giving the results of the tests to  the company.  the  guidance  and  direction  to  the  laboratory attendant and analysts is only ancillary to ’the main  work, which is done by the Chemists themselves.  The Chemists have therefore been rightly held to be workmen. (vi) The  main  work  performed  by  the  Sales  Engineering Representative  is  promotion of sales which  are  canvassed primarily by District Sales Representative.  This the  Sales Engineering Representative does by giving technical  advice, holding  demonstrations  and suggesting methods  for  making best  use  of  the  products sold  He  is  not  employed  on clerical or manual work and the amount of technical work  be does  is all ancillary to his chief duty of promoting  sales and giving advice. 760 (vii)The Blending Supervisor who works in the Wadilube plant is  a person employed on manual work and have to be held  to be  workman.  His ’supervisory work is a very minor part  of his  duties.   The  major part of  his  duties  consists  in himself  operating  various  parts  of  the  machinery   and ensuring  that oils are blended properly.  The  decision  of the  Tribunal  in  respect of such  blending  supervisor  is therefore, incorrect.               (a)   The  principal  work of another  set  of               Blending  Supervisors  who are employed  at  a               stage  where the blending of oils has  already               been   completed  and  the  oils   have   been               transferred  to the settling tanks is that  of               seeing  that the barrels and other  containers               are properly filled up by the larger number of               Workmen placed under their charge who actually               carry out the physical work for that  purpose.               Their duties are thus, primarily  supervisory,               and  the  tribunal’s  decision  that  Blending               Supervisors doing the work of this nature  are               not workmen is  correct.               (b)   the  work  done  by the  third  type  of               blending supervisors described as  supervisors               (Small   Packages   Filling)   is    primarily               supervisory  and consequently the decision  of               the  Tribunal  in  respect  of  them  is  also               correct. (viii)Of the three types of duties performed by the  Foreman (Tank Farm and Pump House), viz., Technical, skilled mannual and  supervisory,  his supervisory duties are the  main  and substantial  part  of his work while other duties  are  only incidental.   The Tribunal was, therefore, right in  holding these Foremen not to be workmen. (ix)The  other  class of Foreman (Tank  Lorry  Loading  Tank Wagon  Loading  and  Tank  Wagon  Unloading)  are  no  doubt responsible for proper loading and unloading; but this ’duty is  discharged by supervising the work of  manual  labourers who actually perform the work of loading and unloading.  The Tribunal’s  decision therefore, that these Foremen  are  not workmen is correct. (x) On the facts found by the tribunal it is clear that  the principal duties of Depot Superintendents are of supervising and   managerial   while  the  clerical  duties   are   only incidental.  Consequently the decision given by the Tribunal that  Depot  Superintendents are employed on  managerial  or supervisory work and are not workmen is correct. Burmah Shell Oil Storage,& Distributing Co. of India, Madras



v. Their Employees, [1954] 1 L.L.J. 21 and Burmah Shell  Oil Storage  & Distributing Co. of India Ltd., Madras V.  Labour Appellate Tribunal of India and two Ors. [1954] 2 L.L.J. 155 (Madras H.C.), held inapplicable. Burmah  Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. of India  Ltd., Madras  and  Hyderabad Branches v. Their Workmen,  [1955]  2 L.L.J.   153  (L.A.T.)  and  Burmah  Shell  Oil  Storage   & Distributing  Co.  of India Ltd., Madras  Branch,  Mysore  & Travancore  Cochin States v. Their Workmen, [1955] 2  L.L.J. 228 (L.A.T.), referred to. (xi)  The case of District Sales Representative  is  clearly that  of  a person who cannot fall within any  of  the  four classes mentioned in S. 2(s) because his work cannot be held to  be either manual, clerical, technical    or supervisory. The  work  ’of investigating and promoting sales  cannot  be included  in  any  of these four  classifications.   He  is, therefore, not a workman.  761

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  1477  & 1478 of 1970. Appeals  by  special leave from the Award dated  January  9, 1970 of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bombay in Ref. (IT) No. 378 of 1967. S.  D.  Vimadlal,  F.  N. Kaka and  I.  N.  Shroc,  for  the appellant  (in C.A. No. 1477 of 1970) and respondent  No.  1 (in C.A. No. 1478 of 1970). A.  S.  R. Chari, H. K. Sowani, K. Rajendra  Chaudhuri"  and Pratap    Singh,  respondent  No.  I (in C.A.  No.  1477  of 1970). The  Judgment of the Court was delivered by Rharpva, J. These two connected appeals by special leave are directed against  an  interim  award  of  the   Industrial Tribunal,s  allow  bonus for the year 1965-66,  between  the employers, Messrs Burmah Shell Oil Storage and  Distributing Company  of India Ltd., Bombay (hereinafter referred  to  as "the Company") and a set of employees who were designated as junior management staff and were members of the Burmah Shell Management  Staff Association registered as a  trade  union. The  reference  was confined to the members  of  the  junior management  staff  long  in Maharashtra  region.   The  main business  of the Company is marketing of petroleum  products and oils and the Marketing Area is the whole of India  which is  divided into four areas, viz., Bombay, Calcutta,  Madras and  Delhi.  The reference related to the Bombay area.   The Organisation  and  management of each area is  divided  into four   function,  Marketing,  Distribution,  Personnel   and Finance.  Each one of the four Areas is itself divided  into several  Marketing  Divisions and each Division  is  further subdivided  into five or seven sales districts, as the  case may  be.  For the sale of commodities, in which the  Company deals,  ’there  are various outlets, such as  petrol  pumps, storage  depots, etc.  The Company also undertakes the  work of fuelling of aircraft at the Airfields which work is  done by  the Airfield Service Stations.  For purposes of  storage and  distribution  of products handled by the  Company,  the Company  maintains port installations as well  as  upcountry depots.   The staff concerned in this reference is  employed at  the  installations  or the, depots  in  the  Maharashtra region. Though  the  members  of the Association  are  described  as junior management staff, they claimed that they were work,-



762 Maharashtra,   Bombay,   in  a  dispute  referred   by   the Government, relating to the revision of scales and grade  of pay,  dearness allowance, overtime payment, duty  allowance, other allowances, and 762 men as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act No. 14 of 1947 (hereinafter  referred to as "the Act") and, on that  basis, raised  an industrial dispute relating to salary,  etc.,  as mentioned  above.   The.  Association served  a  charter  of demands  on  the  Company  on  29th  November,  1966.    The Government  referred the dispute to the Industrial  Tribunal on   28th  October,  1967.   On  2nd  December,  1967,   the Association  put forward its statement of claim  before  the Tribunal  On  behalf of the Company, a  preliminary  written statement  was filed on 15th January, 1968, contending  that none  of the members of the Association was a  work-man,  so that  the  reference  was  incompetent.   In  this   written statement, it was stated that the Company would request  the Tribunal to decide this question as a preliminary issue  and that  a  written  statement on merits would  only  be  filed subsequently,  if it is held that all or any of  members  of the  Association  are workmen within the Act.   A  rejoinder statement  was  filed on behalf of the Association  on  27th March,   1968.   The  Tribunal  gave  its  finding  on   the preliminary issue as an interim award on 9th January,  1970. The members of the Association were classified into  various categories  of  whom  we  need mention  only  10  which  are involved in these two appeals.  Out of these 10, members  of 6 categories were held to be workmen and these are               (1)   Transport Engineer               (2)   District Engineers               (3)   Foreman (Chemicals)               (4)   Fuelling Superintendents,               (5)   Chemists               (6)   Sales Engineering Representatives.               Members  belonging to 4 categories were  held               not to be workmen.  These categories are               (1) Blending Supervisors (2) Foremen               (3)   Depot Superintendents               (4)   District Sales Representatives. Civil  Appeal  No. 1477 of 1970 has been brought up  by  the company challenging the decision of the Tribunal in  respect of  the 6 categories held to be workmen, while Civil  Appeal No. 1478/1970 has been filed by the Association  challenging the  correctness of the decision of the Tribunal in  respect of the 4 categories held not to be workmen. 763 Some  general  features with regard to the members  of.  the Assocation involved in these appeals may be stated.  At  the time of the reference, the lowest basic salary drawn by  the member  of the Association was Rs. 535/- per  mensem,  while the  highest  was Rs. 1500/- per mensem.  In  addition,  the members of the Association are paid dearness allowance equal to 30 per cent of basic salary, House-rent allowance,  leave fare  assistance,  and  bonus.. Medical  benefits  are  also provided   for  them  and  their  families.    The   Company contributes  to the Provident Fund of the members at 10  per cent  of  basic salary and these members on  retirement  are also  entitled to pension which varies between per cent  and 50  percent and 50 per cent of basic salary.  The number  of persons involved in the reference in the Maharashtra  region is  140.   The effect of 7 the decision of the  Tribunal  is that  98 employees belonging to 4 categories have been  held not  to be workmen, whips 42 employees belonging to 6  cate-



gories have been held to be workmen.  The decision in  these appeals  can, however, have wider repercussions because,  in the whole of India, the total number of persons belonging to these  categories would be 648.  If the Tribunal’s  decision is  upheld  154 of them would be workmen and 494  would,  be non-workmen. it may also be noticed that the majority of the persons concerned in this reference originally started at  a salary  of Rs. 100/- to Rs. 200/- per mensem and it is  only as  a result of promotions, revision of salaries and  length of service that they are now drawing basic pay at the rates mentioned  above.   All persons appointed to the  posts  now held  by  them were originally described as  Supervisors  or field  staff;  but,  in  the year  1962,  they  came  to  be designated as junior management staff.  The Association  got itself I registered under the name "Burmah Shell  Management Staff Association". In order to decide whether the decision of the Tribunal with respect  to  the  various  categories  is  correct,  it   is necessary  to consider the,definition- of "Workman" in  the, Act  as amended by Industrial Disputes Amendment Act  36  of 1956.  That definition is reproduced below               "2. (s) "workman" means any person  (including               an apprentice) employed in any industry to  do               any  skilled or unskilled manual,  supervisory               technical or clerical work for hire or reward,               whether the terms of employment be express  or               implied, and for the purpose of any Proceeding               under  this Act in relation to an in  dustrial               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,               764               discharge  or  retrenchment has  led  to  that               dispute, but does not include any such person-               (i)   who is subject to the Army Act, 1950, or               the   Air  Force  Act,  1950,  or   the   Navy               (Discipline) Act, 1934; 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 five  hundred               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." For  an  employee in an industry to be  workman  under  this definition,  it is manifest that he must be employed  to  do skilled   or  unskilled  manual  work,   supervisory   work, technical  work  or clerical work.  If the work done  by  an employee is not of such a nature, he would not be a workman. Mr. Chari on behalf of the Association, however, put forward the  argument that this definition is all comprehensive  and contemplates  that all persons employed in an industry  must necessarily  fall  in one or the other of the  four  classes mentioned above and, consequently, the Court should  proceed on the assumption that every person is a workman; but he may be  taken out of the definition of ’workman’ under-the  four exceptions contained in the definition.  The two  exceptions with  which we are primarily concerned are exceptions  (iii) and  (iv).   Under exception (iii). even a workman,  who  is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative  capacity, goes out of the definition of workman while under  exception



(iv),  persons, who are employed in a supervisory  capacity, ’go  out of the definition, provided they either draw  wages exceeding Rs. 5001- per mensem or exercise, by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in them, functions mainly of a managerial nature. We  are unable to accept, this submission.  In the  case  of May  and Baker(India) Ltd.v.Their Workmen(1),this Court  had to  consider  the correctness of a decision  of  a  Tribunal which  had  held  that  one, Mukerjee,  an  employee  in  an industry, was a work- (1)  [1961] 11 L.L.J. 94.  765 man  under  the  Act  because  he  was  not  employed  in  a supervisory capacity.  The Court held :-               "The  Tribunal seems to have been led away  by               the  fact  that Mukerjee  had  no  supervisory               duties and had to work under the directions of               his  superior officers.  That, however,  would               not  necessarily mean that  Mukerjee’s  duties               were mainly manual or clerical.  From what the               tribunal  itself  has found it is  clear  that               Mukerjee’s duties were mainly neither clerical               nor manual.  Therefore, as Mukerjee was not  a               workman, his case would not be covered by  the               Industrial Disputes Act and the tribunal would               have    no   jurisdiction   to    order    his               reinstatement." In  that  case,  the Court thus held Mukerjee not  to  be  a workman on the ground that his work was neither clerical nor manual  which  was the nature of the work envisage  in  the definition to make an employee, a workman.  It is true  that decision  was  given on the definition of  "workman"  as  it stood   before  the  Amendment  of  1956  where  the   words "supervisor  by"  and  "technical"  did  not  occur  in  the definition.   Mr. Chari’s submission is that the  amendments is  1956 introduced the words "supervisory" and  "technical" with the object of making the definition  all-comprehensive" but, on the face of it, it cannot be so.  If every  employee of an industry was to be a workman except those mentioned in the  four  exceptions, these four classifications  need  not have  been mentioned in the definition and a  workman  could have been defined as a person employed in an industry except in cases where he was covered by one of the exceptions.  The specification  of  the  four  types  of  work  obviously  is intended to lay down that an employee is to become a workman only  if  he is employed to do work of one of  those  types, while  there may be employees who, not doing any such  work, would  be out of the scope of the word "workman"  having  to resort  to the exceptions.  An example, which appears to  be very clear, will be that of a person employed in  canvassing sales  for an industry.  He may be required to do any  paper work,  nor may he required to have any technical  knowledge. He  may be doing any skilled or unskilled manual  work.   He would still be      an   employee  of  the   industry   and, obviously; such an employee would not be a workman,  because the  work, for which he emits played, is not covered by  the four  types mentioned in the definition and not  because  he would  be  taken  out of the, definition under  one  of  the exceptions. The next aspect that has to be taken notice of is that,  in- practice, quite a large number of employees are employed  in industries to do work of more than one of the kinds mention- ed  in  the  definition.   In cases  where  an  employee  is employed to 766



do purely skilled or unskilled manual , work, or supervisory work, or technical work, or clerical work, there would be no difficulty  in  holding  him  to  be  a  workman  under  the appropriate   classification.    Frequently,   however,   an employee  is required to do more than one kind of work..  He may be doing manual work as well as supervisory work, or  he may be doing clerical work as well as supervisory work.   He may  be doing technical work as well as clerical  work.   He may  be doing technical work a,,; well as supervisory  work. In  such  cases, it would be necessary  to  determine  under which classification he will fell for the purpose of finding out whether he does or does not go out of the definition  of "workman" under the exceptions.  The principle is now  well- settled that, for this purpose, a workman must be held to be employed  to  do  that work which is the  main  work  he  is required  to  do, even though he may be  incidentally  doing other  type  of work.  In the case of May  &  Baker  (India) Ltd,(1),  the Court, in the quotation cited  above,  noticed the fact that Mukerjee’s duties were mainly neither clerical nor manual.  The signicance attaches to the word "  mainly", because  Mukerjee’s  duties did involve  some  clerical  and manual work; yet, he was held not to be a workman. In  South  Indian Bank Ltd. v. A. R. Chacko (2),  the  Court applied a similar test when it held               "We can find no mistake in the approach of the               Labour  Court to the question nor can  we  see               any  justification  for interfering  with  its               conclusion  on the evidence in the case.   All               the relevant documents produced have been duly               considered by the Labour Court in the light of               the   oral   evidence  given;  and   on   such               consideration  it has come to  the  conclusion               that though on paper certain rights and powers               were assigned to him and occasionally he acted               in  the place of the Agent when the Agent  was               absent,  such duties did not form part of  his               principal and main duties." The Court, thus,, approved of the test of finding out  which duties were the principal and main duties.  In Ananda Bazar Patrika (Private) Ltd.  V. Its  Workmen(1), this Court clearly enunciated the principle by stating.               "The  principle  which should be  followed  in               deciding  the  question whether  a  person  is               employed  in  a  supervisory  capacity  or  on               clerical  work is that if a person  is  mainly               doing supervisory work but incidentally or for               a               (1)  [1961] II L.L,J. 94        (2)  (1964)  5               S.C.R. 625.               (3)   [1969] 11 L.L.J. 670.                7 6 7               fraction  of the time also does some  clerical               work,  it  would have to be held  that  he  is               employed   in   supervisory   capacity,   and,               conversely,  if  the  main  work  done  is  of               clerical  nature,  the  mere  fact  that  some               supervisory   duties  are  also  carried   out               incidentally  or as a, small fraction  of  the               work   done  by  him  will  not  convert   his               employment as a clerk into one in  supervisory               capacity." Dealing  with the facts of that case, the Court  found  that Gupta, the employee concerned, was employed on clerical work and  not in supervisory capacity.  The principal  work  that Gupta  was  doing was that of maintaining  and  writing  the



cash-book  and  of  preparing various  returns.   Being  the senior  most  clerk, he was put in charge of  the  provident fund  section ’and was given a small amount of control  over the other clerks working in his section.  The only powers he could exercise over them was to allocate work between  them, to  permit  them  to  leave  during  office  hours,  and  to recommend their leave applications.  These few minor  duties of  a  supervisory nature could not convert  his  office  of senior clerk in charge into that of a supervisor. Assistance  in this matter is also available from  decisions by  Courts  in  England  where,  in  connection’  with   the applicability  of  the Factories Act, and  other  Acts,  the Courts  had  to decide whether an employee was  employed  on manual  labour  or not.  The earliest case is  Re  Dairmen’s Foremen  and  Re Tailors’ Cutters(1).   After  referring  to decisions  on the Employers and Workmen’s  and  Compensation Acts,  Swinfen  Eady,  J.,  held  that  those  cases  really afforded assistance in determining the true meaning of  this statute.  In his opinion, although they might perform manual labour,   the  question  was  whether  that  was  the   real substantial  employment  for  which  they  were  engaged  or whether it was not incidental or necessary to it.   Applying this principle to the case of Tailors’ Cutter, it was held:-               "The actual labour of cutting out cloth  might               be  manual labour, but the position be  really               occupied   was   a  manager  of   a   business               department.      His     duties      therefore               substantially were not those involving  manual               labour and he was not within the Act." In   Reid  v.  British  and  Irish  Steam   Packet   Company Limited(2),  reference  was made to an earlier  decision  by that very Court in Jaques v. Owners of the Tug  Alexandra(3) which  decision  was rendered on November 18, 1920,  and  in which  the Court adopted the definition which was  given  by the  late  Master of the Rolls sitting as a Judge  of  first instance, of the meaning of "employed otherwise (1) [1911-1212]Times Law Report587. (2) [1921] 2K.B.D.319. 768 than by way of manual labour." That meaning was approved  by saying:-               "What  that learned judge said was,, that  the               question   whether   a  person   is   employed               otherwise  than by way of manal labour  within               the   meaning  of  that  section  is   to   be               determined  by considering whether any  manual               labour  that he may do in the, course  of  his               service is the real substantial work for which               he   is  engaged,  or  whether  it   is   only               incidental or accessory thereto; if it be  the               latter, the employment is not manual labour." This principle Was also later approved by the House of Lords in the appeal, which came before it against the decision  in the  case of  Jaques v. Owners  of  Steam  Tug  Alexandra, decided  on July 4 1921 (1), where Lord Buckmaster  in his speech said :               "The    difficulty   that   arises   in    the               construction  of  the statute is  due  to  the               number   of   employments  in  which   it   is               impossible  to assert that the  employment  is               solely manual labour or is solely exclusive of               manual  labour,  and  it has been  held  in  a               series  of  cases  approved  in  the   present               instance by the Court of Appeal that in  these               circumstances the real test is the substantial



             nature  of the employment. if that  be  manual               labour  the fact that there are  other  duties               performed that could not be so described  does               not  take the employee outside the benefit  of               the  statute.   If,  on the  other  hand,  the               substantial  part of the employment cannot  be               described  as "manual" labour, the  fact  that               manual work has to be performed does not bring               him within.  This test, Which in my opinion is               the only reasonable one that can be applied to               the  statute  is, I think, the  one  that  was               accepted  by the learned county  court  judge,               and if that be so, unless the proved facts are               of  such a character that it was not  open  to               him  to hold that by their proper  application               the  deceased was excluded from the  Act,  his               finding  is  conclusive and  cannot  be  ques-               tioned." A  similar principle was indicated by Lord Wrenbury  in  the following words :-               "The question to be answered I think is this :               When the employer offered and the man accepted               the employment, was it substantially an  offer               of  manual  labour although it  involved  some               other work, or was it an               (1)   [1921]2A.C.339.               769               offer   of  other  work  although  there   was               attached to it an obligation to do some manual               labour ? To put this particular case : Was the               employment that of master of the tug with  the               duties and responsibilities attaching to  that               office but coupled with an obligation to  take               part with the crew in the manual work, or  was               the  employment that of a manual labourer  who               was to be responsible for the tug as a: senior               man among the crew In  J. & F. Stone Lighting & Radio Ltd. v. Havgarth(1),  the same  test  of the substatial nature of the  employment  was applied  in  interpreting  the  words  "employed  in  manual labour"  in  the Factories Act.  Thus, in the  present  case also,  in determining which of the employees in the  various categories  are  covered by the definition of  "workman"  we have to see what is the main or substantial work which  they are employed to do ? If it is supervisory work, it would  be held  that  they were employed to do supervisory  work  even though  they may also be doing some technical,  clerical  or manual work.  If on the other hand, the supervisory work  be incidental  to  the main or substantial work  of  any  other type,  viz., clerical, ’manual or technical, the  employment would not be in a supervisory capacity.  It is in the  light of  these principles that we shall now proceed  to,  examine the  correctness of the decision of the Tribunal in  respect of various categories of workmen involved in this reference. We  shall  take  them up in the order  in  which  they  were discussed by the counsel for parties in the course of  their arguments. 1.   Transport Engineer: The Transport Engineer works in the Central Garage at Sewree Installations which is maintained, for the purpose of repairs  and maintenance of all motor vehicles owned by  the Company  as  well as for fabrication of bodies  of  lorries. The  Tribunal  in  its award has  mentioned  various  duties carried on by the Transport Engineer, after considering  the evidence  given  by  Mathai who is working  as  a  Transport



Engineer and was examined as a witness, by the  Association, as  well as the evidence of Varkie, the witness examined  on behalf  of the Company, and who was in charge of the  Sewree Installations  as a whole.  It appears that Mathai  obtained some technical qualifications by working as an apprentice in the  Bombay Garage at Santa Cruz for a period of four  years and, thus, gaining knowledge as an automobile mechanic.   He worked  as’ Fitter, Mechanic, and, later, Assistant  Foreman in  the Bombay Garage.  After that, he worked in the  Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking as a Foreman.   He was appointed as Transport Engineer (1) [1968] A-C.  Pt. 3,157. 94Sup.Cl/71 770 in the Company in 195 1. Previously, there used to be  three Transport  Engineers  in the Central Garage with  about  115 workmen under them.  Since a period of six months  preceding the  order  of  reference, Mathai  was  the  sole  Transport Engineer  posted in the Central Garage and he admitted  that he was the senior most Officer in it.  According to him, the Transport  Engineer  is responsible for the entire  work  of repairing, servicing and maintenance of vehicles as well  as for  the  work of modification and  fabrication  of  motor lorries.  In that connection, he himself checks the vehicles that are brought to the.  Central Garage for repairs, has to locate  faults  by actually driving the vehicle for  a  road test,  and then’ explains the manner in which the fault  is to be removed or repaired to the workmen working under  him. He  has  to  see  that the work  of  repair,  servicing  and maintenance  is  properly  caffied  out  by  the  mechanics, fitters,  etc.  After the work is completed, he has  himself to inspect and check the vehicle and there after certify its road-worthiness.    Originally,   when  there   were   three Transport  Engineers in the Central Garage, they had 1  1  5 workmen  carrying  on  the work  of  repair,  servicing  and maintenance and fabrication, etc.  From the time that Mathai has  been the sole Transport Engineer, the  persons  working under him are 58 in number.  Amongst these 58 workmen are 13 Mechanics, 22 Fitters in three different grades, 3  Turners, 2 Welders, 5 Auto-electricians, 2 Carpenters, 3 Painters and remaining  8  are semiskilled or  unskilled  Mazdoors.   All these  men  work as direct subordinates of  Mathai.   Mathai admits that he has to guide them as to how the job is to  be done, though he adds that, in fact, he works with them.   He gives them directions as to how the work is to be done if it is not being carried out properly.  He allocates the job  to the  workmen  and also reallocates the jobs  when  necessary Ever day,  there are roughly 15 to 20 jobs to  be  carried out.   He goes, round to see how the jobs are being done  by the  workmen.  The work of dismantling, repairing,  etc.  is generally done by skilled or higzbly skilled workmen and  it is  only when the work is of a special  technical  character that he himself has to attend to it.  Varkie’s evidence,  as reproduced  by the Tribunal in-the award, shows that  Mathai supervises  the  work of the mechanics,  fitters,  etc.  and ensures  that  repair  schedules are  adhered  to  by  them. Varkie  also  stated that Mathai instructs  and  guides  the workmen in diagnosing the defects as and when necessary,  so that he partly contradicts Mathai who stated that defects in all vehicles are first diagnosed by him.  Varkie also stated that  the  Transport Engineer maintains  discipline  in  his department,  initiates  disciplinary  action  as  and   when necessary, ensures that operations in the Garage are carried out  efficiently, reports on the performance of the  workmen working under him, and sanctions leave in the case of labour



staff working under him,  771 while,  in  some  other cases, he  recommends  leave  to  be granted  to a workman.  The statement of Varkie that  Mathai sanctions  leave is denied by Mathai in his  evidence.   The Tribunal  has  not recorded a clear  finding  accepting  the version  of  one  witness or the  other.   Some  documentary evidence,  was  produced to show that, in  cases  where  the leave asked for did not exceed 1 days, the chits were signed by  Mathai  as  In-charge Department  which, according  to Mathai,  indicated  that he was recommending leave  and  not sanctioning leave.  In this connection, our attention  was also  drawn  to  Rule 19(b) of the Standing  Orders  of  the Company  under  which only ’the Manager was  authorised  to grant  leave;  except  in cases where he  may  delegate  his authority to some other officer.  Varkie stated that he  had delegated  his authorities by to Foreman working  mater  him and  equated  a Transport Engineer with a  Foreman;  but  no written  authority  was  produced.   We  shall,   therefore, proceed on the basis that, in the matter of leave, all  that is  established  is  that  Mathai  had  to  recommend  leave applications  and, ’as admitted by him, his  recommendations were  almost  invariably accepted.  It is not  necessary  to give  further  details of other minor duties carried  on  by Mathai; but the above facts relied upon by the Tribunal show that  the major part of the work done by, Mathai is that  of supervision  of the work of repair,  maintenance,  servicing and fabrication which is actually carried on by,  mechanics, fitters  another skilled or unskilled workmen working  under him.  His own personal work comes in at the first stage when he  may  have to diagnose the defect by actually  driving  a vehicle,  if necessary, and, again, when he  himself  tests the  vehicle  after the work on it has  been  completed  and certifies  it as road-worthy.  As many as 15 to 20 jobs  are carried on in a day simultaneously and it is obvious that he could not himself perform those jobs personally.. In respect of  these jobs, all he could do was to supervise  the,  work being done by the skilled and unused workmen to ensure  that the  jobs were properly done.  On the face of it, the  major part  of  his  duties, thus, consists  of  supervisory  work rather  than his own personal technical work which  is  only incidental to the main work of repair servicing  maintenance and  fabrication inasmuch as, in his supervisory  capacity, he  diagnoses  the defects and later on  inspects  the  work done, makes his personal test and certifies that it has been properly carried out. Despite  these facts, the Tribunal held the Transport  Engi- neer to be a workman on the ground that he was employed  be- cause  of his technical knowledge and, even in  supervision- the  work of the workmen, he is required to make use of  his technical knowledge, and, consequently, rejected the plea of the  Company that the Transport Engineer cannot be said.  to be employed to do supervisory work.  It appears to us  that, in giving this 772 decision,  the  Tribunal misdirected itself.   Even  it  the Transport Engineer uses his technical knowledge, it is  used primary for the purpose of supervising the work done by  the skilled  manual labourers who carry out the actual  repairs, do the servicing or maintenance or complete the fabrication. The  other  supervisory duties, mentioned above,  have  been ignored by the Tribunal on the ground that, in the matter of allocation  of  work,  the Transport  Engineer  does  it  on equitable basis, that it is his duty to get the job done  in a  proper  manner,  that in distributing  or  allocating  or



reallocating  the work, the main consideration which  weighs with the Transport Engineer is whether the work is  executed efficiently from a technical point of view.  These appear to us to be no grounds for holding that work being done by  the Transport Engineer character. In this connection, we may take the main and substantial  is not, supervisory in’ notice of the argument advanced by  Mr. Chari  on  behalf  of 1 the  Association  that,  whenever  a technical  man is employed in an industry, it must  be  held that he is employed to do technical work irrespective of the manner  in which and the, occasions on which  the  technical knowledge of that person is actually brought into use.   The general  proposition  put  forward by him  was  that,  if  a technical  employee  even  gives  advice  or  guides   other workmen, it must be held that he is doing technical work and not  supervisory  work.  He elaborated  this  submission  by urging  that,  if we hold the supervisory work  done  by a technician  as  not amounting to his being  employed  to  do technical work, the result would be that only those  persons would be held to be employed on technical work who  actually do  manual  work themselves.  According to him,  this  would result  in  making  the word "technical"  redundant  in  the definition of ’workman’ even though it was later introduced to  amplify the scope of the definition.  We are  unable  to accept  these  submissions.  The argument that, if  we  hold that  supervisory  work  done  by a  technical  man  is  not employment  to  do technical work, it would result  in  only manual  work being held to be technical work, is not at  all correct.    There is ’a clear distinction between  technical work  and  manual work.  Similarly there  is  a  distinction between  employments  which  are  substantially  for  manual duties,  and  employments where the  principal  duties’  are supervisory  or  other type, though  incidentally  involving some manual work.  Even though the law in India is different from that in England, the views expressed by Branson, J., in Appeal  of  Gardner:  In re Maschek: In  re  Tyrrell(1)  are helpful,  because, there also, the nature a the work had  to be examined to see whether it was manual work.  As  examples of duties dif- (1)  [1938] 1 All E.R. 20.  773 ferent  from  manual labour, though  incidentally  involving manual work, he mentioned cases where a worker (a) is mainly I occupied in clerical or accounting work, or (b) is  mainly occupied IN supervising the work of others, or (c) is mainly occupied  in managing a business or a department, or (d)  is mainly   engaged   in   salesmanship,   or   (e)   if    the successful"’execution  of his work depends mainly  upon  the display  of  taste or imagination or the  exercise  of  some special  mental  or artistic faculty or the  application  of scientific knowledge as distinguished from manual dexterity. Another  helpful illustration given by him of  the  contrast ,,between the two types of cases was in the following words               "If  one finds a man employed because  he  has               the  artistic faculties which will enable  him               to produce something wanted in the shape of  a               creation of his own, then obviously,. although               it  involves a good deal of manual labour,  he               is employed in order that the employer may get               the benefit of his, creative faculty." The example (e), given above, very appropriately applies to the case of a person     employed  to do  technical work-. His work depends upon special mental training or  scientific or technical knowledge. If the     man  is employed  because he possesses such faculties and they,   enable    him     to



produce something as a creation of his own, he will have  to be  held to’ be employed on technical work, even though,  in carrying  out that work, he may have to go through a lot  of manual  labour.   If,  on the, other  hand,  he  is  merely, employed  in supervising the work of others, the fact  that, for’  the purpose of proper supervision, he is  required  to have  technical knowledge will not convert  his  supervisory work  into  technical work.  The work of giving  advice  and guidance cannot be held to be an employment to do  technical work. We may, to clarify this aspect, take an example of a  quali- fied technical Engineer who is concerned with manufacture of machines.   If he himself creates a machine with the use  of his  technical  knowledge, he will certainly be held  to  be employed  to do technical work.  On the, other hand, if  the machine  is being made by others and all he does is to  give advic e or guidance, the actual technical work will have  to be  held to be done by the mechanics carrying on  the  work, while  his  duty  will only be supervisory.   A  more  clear illustration which may be useful is that of a painter.  If a person  is  employed  to paint walls of  a  house  or  paint furniture,  it  would  clearly be employment  to  do  manual labour.   If, on the other hand, he is an artist who  paints works of art as a result of his own creative and imaginative faculty, he would be held to be employed on technical work, 77 4 even though,  in creating the work, he will all the time be using  his own hands to paint the picture.  There can  be  a third case where a good artist may have pupils working under him  who paint artistic pictures and he only  guides  their work.  He may, on occasions, even make some improvements  by retouching the work done ’by the pupils.  On the face of it, such a person cannot-be held to be employed to do  technical work;  be would be a technical supervisor.   These  examples clearly  indicate  that,  in  the  case  of  the   Transport Engineer, whose principal duties are to see that the work is properly  done by the skilled and unskilled workmen  working under  he is really employed to do supervisory work and  not technical work. Reference may be made in this connection to a decision of a learned  single Judge of the madras High Court in  Murugalli Eslate,  Hardypet  v.  industrial  Tribunal  Madras      and Another(1).In  that  case, he was considering  the  question whether one Dr. Srinivasan, a medical attendant employed  in an industry, was a workman.  The learned Judge held :-               "In  my opinion, this view overlooks the  fact               that   Dr.   Srinivasan   was   charged   with               particular  duties of  supervisory  character,               because  of  his technical  qualification  and               level  of his ability and skill.  It  is  that               qualification which the management  recognized               as enabling the doctor to be in charge of  the               supervisory  work  of  the  nature   mentioned               above.    That  being  the  purpose   of   the                             employment,  merely-because, being a technical               man  Dr. Srinivasan was called upon to  attend               to  patients, it could not be stated that  bie               did any the. less supervisory work.  It may be               that  if the duties are measured by  time,  he               spent more time in attending to patients.  But               that,  I  consider,  cannot  be  regarded   as               determining   the   main  functions   of   Dr.               Srinivasan.   The main function for  which  he               was  appointed may not occupy as much time  as



             the  medical attendance on patients.  All  the               same,   the  fact  that  it  is  a   technical               employment  for a particular purpose,  because               of particular qualifications, they should  not               be lost sight of in determining the  character               of the employment.  The test to be applied, to               my  mind,  to cases of  technical  employment,               such  as in this case, should be  the  purpose               for’   which the   employment   is    made,               irrespective of whether the performance of the               duties  may or may not occupy the entire  time               of  the  employee.  That is  because  the  em-               ployment   is  made  on  the  basis   of   the               particular  level of  professional  efficiency               and technical qualifications.  If               (1)   [1964] 2 L.L.J. 164.                775               an employee is found suitable, for supervisory               work,  because of those reasons, it cannot  be               said that his functions are mainly those- of a               medical  attendant,  as,  on  account  of  his               professional qualification, he happened to  be               engaged in that capacity as well.", This  case,  thus, recognises that a person  with  technical qualifications,  can  on  that account,  be  employed  in  a supervisory  capacity and, in such a case, he will be  held to be employed to do supervisory work, so that, in order  to be, a workman, he must not be exempted under exception (IV). The  First  Labour Court, West Bengal,  in  Indamer  Company (Private) Ltd. v. Barin De and Another’(1), applied the same test in determining whether an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (A.M.E.) is a workman or not.  The Court found that the Air- craft  Company was employing 5 A.M..E.s. and they had  30/35 skilled  and  unskilled mechanics working under  them.   The daily  maintenance  of an aircraft was a  considerable  task and the work had to be done at recurring  intervals.   The A.M.Es. could not physically undertake all the task and that was  why  the  Company  had  a  larger  staff  of  qualified mechanics who actually did the job under the supervision  of the A.M.Es. After the actual servicing work of the  aircraft was  done, the A.M.E. was to inspect that the  various  jobs had  been  completed  to  his  satisfaction,  and  he   then certified  the "air-craft as air-worthy.  For this  purpose, he  proceeded to the various machines, gave. advice  to  the mechanics, so that the job was completed, visually inspected the  job-i-nstallation or repair, and gave a certificate  if it  was found to be to his satisfaction.  He signed the  log book  entries.  On these. facts, the Labour Court held  that the A.M Es. were employed to do supervisory work and,  since they were, drawing a salary in excess of Rs. 500 per mensem, they  her not workmen.  That Labour Court distinguished  the decision given by the National Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow, in  the case of The Indian Airlines Corporation v.  The  Air Corporation Employees’ Union, Bombay and Others which  Award is  printed in the Gazette of India Extraordinary  Part  11- section 3-Sub-section (ii) dated March 20, 1958.  That  case was  distinguished  on  the ground that the  duties  of  the A.M.Es.  were  not  specified in the Award  and  there  was, furthermore, an admission in that case that certain parts of checking work had to be done by the A.M.Es. themselves.   We have been taken through the Award of the National Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow, and we are unable to hold that,  decision can be of any assistance in determining the general question whether  a  person,  possessing  technical   qualifications, employed on super-



(1)  [1958]2L.L.J.556. 776 visory  duties, must be held to be employed to do  technical work and not supervisery work. In  determining the nature of employment of Mathai,  and  in holding that he is employed to do supervisory work, we  have taken into account not only the work of supervision which he carries on in ensuring that the skilled and unskilled manual workmen  employed under him are properly doing the  work  of repairs,  maintenance, servicing and fabrication, etc.,  but also  the fact that the workmen function under  his  control and  directions, that he allocates an reallocates work to  , that  he  initiates,  disciplinary  proceedings,  etc.   The exercise   of  such  powers  is--’clearly  a  part  of   his supervisory  duty.   That such functions indicate  that  the employment is of supervisory character was laid down by this Court in All India Reserve Bank Employees Association v. Re- serve  Bank of India(1) where Hidayatullah, J., as  he  then was, expressed the view of the Court ’the following words               "These   employees  distribute  work,   detect               faults,  report for penalty, make  arengements               for  filling vacancies, to mention only a  few               of  the duties-which are supervisory  and  not               merely clerical." Thus,  in  the’  case of a Transport Engineer,  there  is  a combination  of  supervisory  duties  of  two  types.    The Transport Engineer actually supervises the work of  repairs, maintenance,  servicing and fabrication which is carried  on in the Central Garage by the skilled mechanics, fitters, and other workmen, and, at the same time, he has the supervision over,  those  men  in  the  matter  of  giving   directions, recommending  leave,  initiating  disciplinary  proceedings, etc.   In  this view, the decision of the  Tribunal  holding that  the  Transport  Engineer is a workman has  to  be  set aside,  because,  admittedly,  the  Transport  :Engineer  is drawing salary in excess of Rs. 500 per mensem and ceases to be a workman under exception (iv) of the definition. 2.   District Engineers In  the  case  of District Engineers, the  Tribunal  had  to consider   the  evidence  of  the   Association’s   witness, Sirdesai,  one  of the District Engineers  employed  by  the Company,   and  the  evidence  of  the  Company’s   witness, Manoharlal Chopra.  The du,ties, which the District Engineer performs, consist of assessing suitability, of the sites for depots  from  the  point  of view  of  the  technical  and engineering  aspects, suggesting layout for construction  of depots  or  service  stations,  seeing  that  the  estimates prepared  by the draughtsman are correct from the  technical point  of  view,  scrutinising  tenders  for   construction, checking  the  construction work given  to  the  contractor, certifying bills submitted (1)  [1966] 1 S.C.R. 25.  777 by  contractors  for the work done by  them,  and  preparing estimates  for  maintenance work in respect of  depots.   He also  gives,certificate  as required by  the   Inspector  of Explosive  after  satisfying  himself  about  the  technical fitness of the installation facilities.  On the other  hand, it  appears  that  the  principal  work,  for  which  he  is employed, is that of supervision inasmuch as his required to supervise  work  done by others instead of  doing  the  work himself.  The estimates are prepared by draughts man and  he only checks them.  The scrutiny of tenders given by the con- tractors  as well as checking the construction work done  by the contractors is in the nature of supervision, so as  also



certification  of  bills.   He  himself  admitted  that   he controlled  and  directed construction and  maintenance  and looked  after  construction  and  maintenance  work  of  the company-owned depots in his district.  He had to look  after filling  and  servicing stations and  company’s  office  and staff  quarters.  lie controlled and directed the work  of draughts men, fitters and painters throughout the  district. He  also  kept contact with Electric  Supply  Undertakings,. Public Works Department and Municipality in connection  with the  construction  work.  He has one draughtsman  and  eight fitters working under him.  In view of these admissions made by  him, a question was put to him at the end of his  cross- examination as follows:-                "  I  put  it to you that  you  are  employed               principally   to   supervise,   control    and               coordinate  the activities of the  contractors               and the company’s men in the district for  all               the construction and maintenance work ?"               His answer was:-               "Yes, that is true." The  Tribunal took notice of the admission made by  Sirdesai that  he was employed principally to supervise  control  and coordinate-the   activities  of  the  contractors  and   the company’s  men  in  the district for  all  construction  and maintenance work, but added that the nature of  super-vision and  control  was  essentially technical,  and,  so  far  as fitters  and  draugtsman were concerned,  the  guidance  and instructions  given  by the District Engineer to  them  were also  of  technical character.  Holding that  there  was  no supervision  in the sense of any administrative  control  or powers: exercised over them, the Tribunal concluded that the District Engineer was employed to do technical work and  not supervisory  work.   On  the, face of it,  the  decision  is incorrect.  The principles that we have explained above,  in dealing with the case of Transport Engineer, manifestly show that a District Engineer is also principally employed to  do work which is of a supervisory character and, even though he has to use his technical know-- 778 ledge  for the purpose of properly carrying on  supervision, it cannot be held that he is employed to do technical  work. A District Engineer also draws a salary in excess of Rs. 500 per  mensem  and, consequently, he cannot be held  to  be  a workman.   The decision of the Tribunal is,  therefore,  set aside in respect of the District Engineers also. 3.   Foreman (Chemicals) The Foreman (Chemicals) examined is M. D. Daniel.  The,claim of  the Association was that he was employed essentially  to do  technical  and manual work.  In his evidence,  he  first described the work done by a Chemist,which was a post  held by   him  earlier.   Giving  the  duties  of   the   Foreman (Chemicals),  he stated that the main part of his duties  as Foreman  is  to  be  responsible for  the  blending  of  the chemicals.   He admitted that the work of  packing,  capping and filling is done by labourers under his supervision.   He himself makes only random checks in order to ensure that the labourers are doing the work properly.  He admitted that  he allots  the  work  to the workmen under him who  are  20  in number.   Further, he had another 20 workmen under  him  for lorry filling of furnace oil.  Though he denied that he  was responsible for their discipline, he admitted that he  makes reports  to  the officer-in-charge, chemicals,  whenever  an occasion   arises.   He  signs  gate  passes  and   material vouchers.  He recommends promotions of the men working under him  and he is entitled to select a person for acting  in  a



higher  capacity for the day when the person  occupying  the higher  job  is absent.  It is his duty  to  ensure  maximum utilisation  of man-power.  Like Mathai, he has also  signed chits  for leave not exceeding 18 days as I/C.,  Department; but he has also pleaded that his signature was made in token of recommendation and not sanction.  The 20 workmen  working under  him  in the, chemical  department  include  checkers, general  workmen,  packers and  chemical  mixers.    These duties,  which are performed by Daniel, oil the face of  it, are  primarily  and  substantially those  of  a  supervisory nature.  His own manual work is only incidental and forms  a small  part  of his duties.  In dealing with his  case,  the Tribunal  got slightly mixed up inasmuch the facts  relating to duties of Chemists were also taken into account.  Daniel, who is now Foreman (Chemicals), was earlier a Chemist.   The work performed by a Chemist should not, therefore, have been taken  into  account when determining what  work  Daniel  is employed  to do.  The duties, mentioned above ’clearly  show that  his principal duties are of a supervisory  nature  and the manual work done by him  personally is only  incidental. Since  he  also  draws a salary in excess  of  Rs.  500  per mensem, the  must  be  held not  to  be  a  workman  under exception (iv).  779 4.   Fuelling Superintendents The  duties of a Fuelling Superintendent were given  to  the Tribunal  in the affidavit and evidence of V. M.  Nabar  who has  been working as such since 1953.  These duties  can  be broadly divided into two parts.  Some duties he has to-carry on at the depot where he personally takes charge and  checks and  counts the packed stocks that is, cans,  barrels,  full and  empty, and he maintains the packed stocks  register  He dips  every storage tank for quantity, quality and water  He himself carries to every storage tank equipment like manhole cover, dip tape, water finding paper and other articles.  He takes the dip with the tape and notes down the reading.   He checks  the condition of the water finding paper  by  gently rubbing  a finger on it.  He removes water traces  from  the tank  by  swabbing, if necessary.   He  conducts  continuity tests  of  discharge hoses.  He  calculates  the  quantity- according to  the  dip from  the  calibration  tables  and completes the paper showing the dips and quantities for  all the  storage tanks.  He makes similar entire in  every  tank book, and enters the loss or gain in the same book.  He also carries  out  checks of static facilities, and  maintains  a book called quality control register. He himself notes down the  time  of  arrival of the tank lorry on  log  sheet  and carries  out  checks  in  accordance  with  the  details  of consignment forms.  In the other Part of the work,  whenever oil is required to be delivered to an aircraft the  Fuelling Superintendent himself drives the tractor on which are load- ed oil pourers and a ladder, to the aircraft.  It is he  who takes  the  oil tank to the aircraft and  then  ensures  the delivery  of  that  oil to the aircraft  in  the  required quantity.  In this work, of courts , he is assisted by  some other workmen who actually do the work of connecting the oil tank  to  the-  tank of the aircraft  or  disconnecting  it. Similar  other minor manual work is done by the workmen  who function  under his control and direction.  It is,  however, clear  that the main and substantial work which he  does  is not that of supervising the work done by the few workmen who assis t him, but is his manual work which he carries out  at the depot as well as when delivering oil to the aircraft. The Company’s witness in respect of the Fuelling Superinten- dent  is  Des  Rai Bhatia who tried to  indicate  that,  the



manual   or  clerical  work  carried  on  by  the   Fuelling Superintendent  is  incidental or  in  emergent  situations, while  the Fuelling Superintendent is employed primarily  to take over, responsibility for all matters connected with the fuelling  ad  oiling  of  aircraft  with  the  use  of   oil dispesers, fuellers, and/or hydrant fuelling equipment.  He. compared  the position of a Fuelling Superintendent to  that of  a playing captain of a hockey or football team and  says that, 780 while he himself has to work along with other members of the team, he is also required to assume Over ’all responsibility for all operations prior to,’ during and after the  delivery of  fuel/oil to aircraft including the observance of a  time schedule,  safety  and  quality control.  The  fact  that  a Fuelling  Superintendent  is the leader of  the  team  which carries  out the work of fuelling, cannot convert  his  work into  that of a supervisory nature.  In fact, the  admission that  he is a member of the team implies that his  principal work  would  be to do his own personal manual work  as  such member  and, incidentally, he has also to be in  charge  of seeing  that others, whose work has to be, coordinated  with his,  do their work properly.  The Tribunal was,  therefore, correct  in  holding that a Fuelling Superintendent  is  not employed mainly or substantiary to do supervisory work.   II On the other hand, his duties are mainly manual.   Exception (iv) does not, therefore, apply to a Fuelling Superintendent and,  even though the salary exceeds Rs. 500 per  mensem,  a Fuelling Superintendent must be held to be a workman. 5. Chemists On the question of the duties parried out by a Chemist,  the Association examined three witnesses.  One of them is M.  D. Daniel who had once worked as a Chemist and is now  Foreman (Chemicals).   The  other  two are A. N.  Dalai  and  P.  N. Marolia  who are both working as Chemists.  They have  given their qualifications and mature of work done by them.  There are,  no  doubt,  Assistants  who  assist  the  Chemists  in the,laboratory  where their work is carried on; but all  the Chemists  do  their own work which is of  technical  nature. The  Chemists have to personally test the  various  products receive 1 and also test the products as they are altered  in the  installations  at various stages.  All  the  tests  are carried out by the Chemists personally and there are only  a few  Assistants who do mere routine work in order to  assist the Chemists.  The Chemists, no doubt, ensure that the work- men  assisting  them do their for properly; but  that  small amount  of  supervision  is only  incidental  to  their  own technical  ’work of testing and giving the results of  tests to  the  Company.   Even the  Compuserve’s  witness  Harding Bhargava  admitted that the Chemists do a large part of  the work themselves, though he added that the Chemists do  guide and  direct the Analysts and Laboratory Attendant so  as  to ensure  that  the  work  in  the  laboratory  is   performed efficiently  and properly.  Even his evidence does not  show that this guidance and direction to the laboratory attendant and, analysts is the principal or substantial work for which a  Chemist is employed.  In fact, that work is ancillary  to the  main  work which is done by the  Chemists’  themselves. The  decision of the Tribunal,, consequently, in respect  of the Chemists, holding them 781 to  be  employed on technical work and  not  in  supervisory capacity, must be upheld.  They have rightly been held to be workmen. 6.   Sales Engineering Representatives



The witness on behalf of the Association is K. V. Rajan who filed an affidavit and was also cross-examined.  He holds  a Diploma  in  Mechanical and Electrical Engineering  and  has worked  as a Sales Engineering Representative since 1955  at various   planes.   In  giving  the  duties  of  the   Sales Engineering  Representing, he first mentioned items of  work that  the  Representative has Lo do himself.   According  to him,  he  has  to guide the industrial concerns  in  use  of different  grades of fuels and lubricants, and has  to  give demonstrations and trials of Company’s fuels and  lubricants in  major industrial concerns which are the  customers.   He says that the manual labour by him consists of demonstrating the  method  and manner in which the  fuels  and  lubricants should  be used and applied.  He explains all details  with regard  to application of fuels and lubricants to the  staff of.  the  customer  concerns, and he  also  attends  to  the difficulties  experienced  by the customers in  the  use  of Company’s  products.   He writes to  the  Divisional  Office which,   in   turn,   instructs   the   Sales    Engineering Representative   to  attend  to  such  complaints   of   the customers.  He also gives technical advice to eliminate  the complaints  of  the customers, and writes  down  the  survey reports  and submits them to the Divisional Office.  He  has to    maintain-files   up-to-date   regarding    lubrication recommendation  sheets  sent  by  the  Head  office  to  his Division.  Then, in cross-etamination, he admitted that  the work  that he does is for promating the sales of  lubricants and  fuel oils, though he added that, in doing so,  he  uses his technical knowledge. Manmohan  Singh, Marketing Services and Planning Manager  of the  Company,  explained  that  a  Sales  Enginering  Repre- sentative is employed primarily to support the sales efforts by providing after sales service and advice to the customers on  optinum utilisation of fuels and lubricants.   According to   him,  the  principal  duty  of  a   Sales   Engineering Representative  is to provide such service and to guide  and supervise  the  workers  employed in  customers’  plants  to ensure  efficient use of fuels and lubricants.   His  duties have  been described as complementary to the duties  of  the District Sales Representative.  He, however, did admit  that the Sales Engineering Representative has to give  demonstra- tions  regarding  use  of fuels  and  lubricants,  and  such demonstrations are conducted by him, though part of the work in the demonstration is done by the workers of the  customer concerns.  It is true that there is no subordinate personnel attached to him. 782 The Tribunal itself held that the main work to be  performed by  Sales  Enginering Representative is promotion  of  sales which   are   canvassed   primarily   by   District    Sales Representatives.  This the Sales Engineering  Representative does by giving technical advice, holding demonstrations  and suggesting methods for making best use of the products sold. On  these facts, the Tribunal, in our opinion, rightly  held that  the Sales Engineering Representative, is not  employed on  supervisory  work;  but the  Tribunal  did  not  proceed further to examine whether he was employed on any other work of  such  a  type  that lie  could  be  brought  within  the definition of a workman.  There is no suggestion at all that he  was employed on clerical work or manual work.   Reliance was,  placed on the word "technical" used in the  definition of  a  workman.  The amount of technical Work that  a  Sales Engineering,  Representative  does is all ancillary  to  his chief duty of promoting sales and giving advice.  As we have held  earlier  the  mere fact that he is  required  to  have



technical  knowledge  for such a purpose does not  make  his work   technical  work.   The  work  of  advisors.    Harish Bhargava,  the Manager of the Installations, has,  described all Blending Supervisors as Foreman Blending Supervisor.  As we  have said, earlier, the mere description  is,,  however, immaterial.  What we have to see is the actual work done  by them’  and  to determine whether the work,  which  they  are employed to do, makes them workmen or not. V.   V.  Lele  is  the  witness in respect  of  one  set  of Supervisors  tion  whose cases have been brought up  by  the Association  in’, Civil Appeal No. 1478/1970.  Mr. Chari  on behalf of the appellant is this appeal did not argue all the cases   ’of  the  four  categories  mentioned  above.    We, therefore,  proceed  to deal with only those  categories  of members  of  the Association whose  cases  have_been  argued before us by him. 1.   Blending Supervisors: It appears that there are two sets of persons working at the Wadilube  Installations who are all designated  as  Blending Super-   visors.   Harish  Bhargava,  the  manager  of   the installation,  has  described all  Blending  Supervisors  as Foreman-Blending supervisors.  As we have said earlier,  the mere description is, however,’ immaterial.  What we have  to see  is  the  actual work done by  them?  and  to  determine whether the work, which they are employed to do, makes  them workmen or not. V.   V.  Lele  is  the  witness in respect  of  one  set  of Supervisors  who  work in the blending section  of  Wadilube plant.  He works in the blending pump house and in the plant where  the actual blending takes place.  According to  Lele, in  connection  with the duties to be performed by  him,  he received  a  daily blending’ programme from  the  Operations Officer, and the blending has to be done in accordance  with that programme and in conformity  783. with the formulations supplied by the laboratory.  For  that purpose, he receives a test note from the laboratory  before he starts the work of blending. He has himself to test  the tank  in order to find out whether it is clean or  not.   He personally  connects  by means of a hose pipe  the  blending tank  to  the pump line coming from the pump  house  on  the ground  floor.   He then advises the pump house  Foreman  to start  the  pump,  while he himself  has  to  be  constantly vigilant at the tank to ensure that the required quality  is taken  up in the tank.  As soon as the required quantity  is received,  he stops the pump by moans of a  remote  control. He changes the hose pipe and puts it on to another line  and keeps  on  this process as each tank is  filled  up.   While receipt  of  the oil in the tank is going  on,  he  himself’ operates  steam and air valves in order to keep the  oil  at the  required temperature and also maintains  air  agitation for mixing different basic oils.  After the blending in  the tank  is over, he take$ out samples personally, labels  them properly and sends them to the laboratory for test purposes. On receipt of the test reports from the laboratory,  hefills in the blending test notes quantity of different oils  taken and  sends them back to the laboratory.  There are about  25 blending  tanks which have to be attended to in this  manner by  two Blending Supervisors.  After the blending  is  over. the  Supervisor advises the barrel filling section  and,  if the  blended  oil is needed in that section,  he  sends  the blended  oil  to  that section; if  that  section  does  not require  it, he transfers the blended oil to,  the  settling tank.  For these purposes, he again operates different  line valves,  so  that the blends may drop  into  the  particular



settling  tank.  There are 20 such settling tanks.   He  has also  to  note the readings of the levels  of  the  blending tanks  as well as the settling tanks.  He has to take  stock personally  of the barrels and other packages used and  left unused  in  his  section and writes down  the  same  in  the prescribed form.  It is true that he has two persons working under him as Mazdoors and a Clerk, comes to assist him only at the time of monthly checking.  The Mazdoors, according to him, ’do only incidental work in aid of the main process  of blending, such as moving empty tins, cleaning them, etc.  He also  does some work at the Port when a tanker arrives  with oil  from a\ foreign country and has to discharge it at  the Port.   At that stage, no doubt, he supervises the  work  of discharge  of  the oil from the tanker and  receipt  in  the tanks at the, Port.  This supervisory work, it is clear, is, a  very  minor part of his duties.  The major  part  of  his duties,  consists  in himself operating various  as  of  the machinery and ensuring that oils are blended properly.,  Mr. Chari, in these circumstances, rightly claimed that a person employed’ as Blending Supervisor in the type of work done by Lele is employed to do manual work and not supervisory work. The supervisory work is a minor part of his duties’ and,  to some extent, incidental to 784 the main work which is manual in character.  Blending Super- visors,  who  work at the Plant in the manner  indicated  by Lele,  are, therefore, persons employed on manual  work  and have to be held to be workmen.  The decision of the Tribunal in respect ,of them is incorrect and is set aside. Another set of persons are employed as Blending  Supervisors at  a different stage of the opera cons.  The  witness,  who has come to give the duties of such Blending Supervisors, is M.  C. Gomes.  The, Tribunal, in dealing with the work  done by Gomes, appears to have got mixed up when if held that his duties  are  similar  to  the  duties  mentioned  by   Lele. Consequently, we were taken through the relevant evidence of Gomes  and  of Harish Bhargava on this  point.   It  appears that,  though Gomes is described as a  Blending  Supervisor, his employment is at a stage where the blending of oils  has alrea dy  been completed  and the off have been  transferred to   the  settling  tanks.   According  to   Gomorrah,   the Operations  Officer  gives  him the  programme  for  filling different  oils in different packages, and he has  to  carry out  that programme.  He has first, to see that  oiling  the settling  tank is transferred to the small package  tank  by operating  a pump.  At this stage, he himself ’operates  the pump  by  starting it, watching the gauge  and-stopping  the running  of  the pump when the small package tank  is  full. Then, the oil is transferred from the small package tank  to the  filling machines.  The fillers at the filling  machines are then operated by other workmen to transfer the oil  into the  small package containers.  Games has to see  that  this work of transferring the oil from the small pack:age tank to the filling machines and from the filling machines into  the containers  is properly carried out by the  persons  working under  him.   All the work of bringing the  barrels  to  the filling  machines, of actually seeing that the  barrels  are filled  up  properly,  and of  sealing  and  labelling  them properly,  is physically done not by Gomes himself,  but  by men  working under him whose work he supervises.  No  doubt, as  a Supervisor, he has to set the weights on the  machines and  has to take samples of the products and send  them  to, the  laboratory; but the principal work entrusted to him  is that  of  seeing that the barrels and other  containers  are properly.  filled up by the large number of  workmen  placed



under  his charge who actually carry out the  physical  work for   that  purpose.   His  duties  are,   thus,   primarily supervisory;  and  the  Tribunal’s  decision  that  Blending Supervisors  doing the work of the nature done by Gomes  are not workmen because they are all drawing a salary in  excess of Rs. 500 per mensem, is correct and is upheld. It  was  mentioned that there was a third type  of  Blending ’Supervisors   described  as  Supervisors  (Small   Packages Filling).  785 Their  work is quite similar to the work done by Gomes  and, consequently,  the  decision of the Tribunal in  respect  of them is also correct and is upheld. 2. Foremen (i)  One class of Foremen, :whose case was argued before  us by Mr.    Chari,  are  described as Foremen (Tank  Farm  and Pump House)    at the sewree installations.  The witness  on behalf  of  the  Association  is  D.  M.  Telang.   In  this affidavit  and evidence he tried to make out that he has  to carry  out three types of duties, technical, skilled  manual and  supervisory:  but,  on a  careful  examination  of  his evidence, the Tribunal has come to the finding that, of  the three types of duties, his supervisory duties are themes and substantial  part of his work, while other duties  are  only incidental.   We are, unable to find any error in  the  view taken  by the Tribunal.  He has about 25 workman  under  him whose  work  he  supervises.   The  Tribunal  accepted   the evidence of Company’s witnesses, Harish Bhargava and  Varkie for  holding that such Foremen are primarily entrusted  with the  duty of supervising the work of the workmen in  the  it respective  sections.  No technical knowledge  is  involved. Even, when the oils are tested, the dips are not necessarily taken  by  the  Foremen.   The dips  are  usually  taken  by gaugers.   The work of taking the dips, of reading the  dips and  of temperature readings does not require any  technical knowledge.   All  that is  necessary is to  push  a  button. Varkie  stated  that quality control in Burmah  Shell  is  a simple process I which has to be carried out with the object of  ensuring a clean product free of impurities.   Even  the work  of  draining  of water from,the tank is  done  by  the gaugers  under  the supervision of the Foreman.  It  is  the gauger  who  takes the pressure and, if it is  abnormal,  he informs  the Foreman.  Even Telang him-. self admitted  that he  was  employed  in  a  supervisory  capacity,  though  he insisted that the work done by him was of technical, skilled manual, and supervisory characted.  It also appears that  he has  to supervise the work of as many as 25 workmen.  It  is for  him to decide whether a man, who has asked  for  leave, can  be  spared.  The Company’s case was that’ in  fact,  he grants  leave to men working under him; but he  denied  this suggestion Documentary evidence was, however, brought to our notice  which  shows that he has been  actually  sanctioning leave  to workmen metary evidence was, however, brought  to our  n otice which subordinate to him, when the leave  asked for  is earned leave.  We looked at the  leave  applications and  found  that,  in  one  case  at  least,  he  signed  as recommending the leaves, but cut out that signature and then signed  it again at the place where the officer  sanctioning the  leave is required to sign.  Even other  persons,  doing the  same  duty  as  Telang,  were  found  to  be  similarly sanctioning leave.  There was even one application where the recommendation for leave was 1-L694 Sup Cl/71 786 by some other person, while Telang signed as the sanctioning



,,officer.   In  a  third  case,  Telang  actually  recorded reasons  for  refusing to sanction the  leave.   It  appears that,  at least in the case of Foremen (Tank Farm  and  Pump House).   Varkie is right in stating that he  had  empowered the  Foremen  to grant leave, and Harish  Bhargava  is  also correct  in saying that powers of sanctioning leave are  not retained  by the Operations Officer.  Telang admitted,  that he  has to maintain discipline and has to report  ,cases  of indiscipline  in his department.  He allots work  to  those who  are working under him, and then gets it done by  giving guidance.   It  is his job to see that the man-power  is  so utilised as to give maximum out put.  Considering all these duties,  it  is quite clear that the Tribunal was  right  in holding  these  Foremen  not to be  workmen,  as  they are employed in supervisory capacity and are drawing salary  in excess of Rs. 500 per mensem. (ii) The  other  class of Foremen are described  as  Foreman Tank  Lorry  Loading,  Tank Wagon  Loading  and  Tank  Wagon Unloading).  Mr. Chari claimed 1 that these per sons  should be  ,held to be workmen as they were employed to do  skilled manual work.  The facts found by the Tribunal ’clearly  show that  the actual loading and unloading in all cases is  done by  other  persons and not by the Foremen  themselves.   The Foremen  are. no doubt, responsible for proper  loading  and unloading;  but this duty is discharged by  supervising  the work  of manual labourers ’who actually perform the work  of loading and unloading.  Of course, when occasions arise, the Foreman may also lend a hand; ’but that would not make him a skilled  manual worker.  On the findings of fact  order  by the  Tribunal, therefore,, the decision that  Foreman  (Tank Lorry   Loading,  Tank  Wagon  Loading,  and Tank   Wagon Unloading) are not workmen is correct, as they also all draw a salary in excess of Rs. 500 p.m. 3.   Depot Superintendents: 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 Superkey   ,dents  of this very Company  in  other  regions. After considering the evidence of Athalye and the  Company’s witnesses,  the  Sir banana, as a fact, held  that  a  Depot Superintendent  is in-charge ,of all the stocks at  a  depot and  his  principal ’duty is to see that these  stocks  are properly  received, stored and sent out.  These stock  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  787 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 reconunendations  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  indiscretions  to  the Head Office.   Sometimes,  he  is empowered  to hold inquiry in cases of indiscipline.   Cases of minor indiscipline can be dealt- with by him himself.  In addition, the Depot Superintendent functions as Factory  Ma-



nager under the Factories Act and also under the Shops  and Establishments  Act.   The  Depot  Superintendent  does  the meritrating  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  stockregisters  are  properly maintained.   Where  there is a clerck, 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.   This writing work done by the  Depot  Supe- rintendent 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. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Labour  Appellate Tribunal  in  Burmah  Shell  Oil  Storage  and  Distributing Company  of India,, Ltd., Madras v. Their Employees(1).   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, storagee 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 hi$ job  was substantially (1)  [1954] 1 L.L.J. 21. 788 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 and two  others(1)  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 don 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 supervise the Work of the subordinate posted there. As  against  these  cases, there are two  decisions  of  the Labour  Appellate Tribunal in Burtnah-Shell Oil Storage  and Distributing  Compose of India Ltd., Madras  and  Hydetiabad Branches  V. Their Workmen(1), and Burmah-Shell Oil  Storage and Distributing Co. of India, Ltd., Madras Branch,  Mysore- and Travan Core-Cochin States v. Their Workmen(3), in  which the Labour Appellate Tribunal, after examining the  evidence in   detail,  came  to  the  view  that  the  principal   ad 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. 4.   District Sales Representatives : The  case  of  the  last  category,  viz.,  District   Sales Representatives could not be seriously pressed by Mr.  Chaxi before  us.   He did state that his claim is that  they  are employed to do clerical work; but the facts make it manifest that  District Sales Representative is principally  employed for the purpose of promoting sales of the Company.  His main work  is  to  do  canvassing and  obtain  orders.   In  that connection’,   of   course,  he  has  to   carry   on   some correspondence, but that correspondence is incidental to the main  work of pushing sales of the Company.   In  connection with promotion of sales, he has to make recommendations  for selection of agents and dealers; extension or curtailment of credit   facilities  to  agents,  dealers   and   customers; investments  on  capital  and  revenue,  in  the  shape   of facilities at Agent’s premises or retail (1) [1954]2 L.L.J.155                       (2) [1955] L.L.J.153 (3)  [1955] 2 L.L.J. 228  789 outlets; and selection of suitable sites for retail  outlets to  maximise sales and negotiations for terms of new  sites. He  is,  in fact, Company’s representative in  his  district responsible   for  all  matters  affecting   the   Company’s interests and, in Particular, the profitable sale of all its products.  His case was urged primarily on the basis of  the argument  advanced  by  Mr. Chari  that  the  definition  of "workman"  is  now  exhaustive  and  every  employee  of  an industry  must  be classed amongst one of the  four  classes described  in  the Definition of workman.  We  have  already given  our reasons for :ejecting this submission.  The  case of District Sales Representative is clearly that of a person who cannot fall within any of the four classes, because  his work cannot be held to be either manual, clerical, technical or supervisory.  The work of canvassing and promoting  sales cannot be included in any of these four classifications.  He is,  therefore,  not a workman at all within  the  principal part of the definition, and the decision of the Tribunal  is correct. As  a result, both the appeals are partly allowed,  and  the decision  of the Tribunal is varied to the extent  indicated above.  In the circumstances of this case, we direct parties to bear their own costs in both the appeals. K.B.N.                                       Appeals allowed in part. 790