When an employee shall be treated as workman and not supervisor in an Industry?

Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners, has enumerated different departments where the
respondent no.1 was rendering services to advance his
contention that the respondent no.1 was conducting
supervisory functions. These functions highlighted by Mr.
Sardessai are essentially with regard to the performance of
surprise inspection of cash, checking if there are any
discrepancies, report recommend corrective actions and the
admission of the respondent no.1 that he observed that there
were several lapses. The learned counsel also pointed out
that in the maintenance of important registers, the
respondent no.1 was carrying out inspections and internal
audits and that he had admitted that in the process of
performing the duties in the internal audit department, he
had entrusted and had opportunity of conducting several
verifications. All these aspects have been taken note of by
the learned Tribunal to come to the conclusion that these
duties were only in the process of checking the accounts
which cannot be considered to be of supervisory in nature
and I find no perversity in these findings of the learnedTribunal. Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners, has also highlighted different aspects with regard
to the duties performed by the respondent no.1 to advance
his contention that the respondent no.1 had an independent
capacity to take decisions and/or was performing supervisory
functions. All these aspects have also been minutely dealt
with by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award and, as
such, I find that there is no error committed by the learned
tribunal to come to the conclusion that the respondent no. 1
was a 'workman' within the meaning of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 40 OF 2004
The Goa Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd.,
V e r s u s
Mr. Rui A. E. Ferreira
CORAM : F. M. REIS, J
DATE : 21st July, 2014
Citation;2015(7) ALLMR 388

Print Page