2025:UHC:1156 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No. 490 of 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute against termination of his services by the respondent, w.e.f. 27.12.2019. The said dispute was referred for adjudication to learned Labour Court, Dehradun and was registered as Adjudication Case No.01 of 2021. Learned Labour Court has held that petitioner is not a workman, therefore, no relief can be granted to him in proceedings under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the award dated 21.10.2024. 3. It is not in dispute that petitioner was appointed as Traffic Manager in Garhwal Motor Owner’s Union Ltd. on probation for a period of six months’, vide order dated 01.05.2014. The probation period was, thereafter, extended from time-to-time and vide order dated 27.12.2019, his services were terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory service. 4. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity of hearing before terminating his services; in the order of appointment issued to petitioner on 01.05.2014, it was mentioned that the service conditions of petitioner shall be as per the service rules and standing 2025:UHC:1156 orders applicable in the company, therefore, it is indicative of the fact that petitioner was a workman and not a Manager, therefore, the finding returned by learned Labour Court that petitioner is not a workman, is unsustainable. 5. Learned Labour Court has considered the duties and functions of petitioner as Traffic Manager and also the advertisement, which was produced by petitioner as Paper No. 17, shows that for appointment as Traffic Manager, a candidate was required to possess Bachelors Degree, besides Law Degree and Diploma in Labour Law in addition to knowledge of Computers and experience in administrative work. Petitioner himself is a Law Graduate. It has come on record that, as Traffic Manager, petitioner was responsible for management and operation of buses and arrangement of traffic. Based on the duties/functions and qualifications needed for the post of Traffic Manager, learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that petitioner was appointed in managerial capacity and not as a workman. Since petitioner failed to prove that he was discharging duties of a workman, therefore, learned Labour Court returned a finding that petitioner’s status is not of a workman. 6. Law is well settled that mere designation of the post is not decisive of the nature of employment. The question whether a person is employed in a supervisory capacity or in a clerical/ manual work depends whether the main and principal duties carried out by him are those of a supervisory character or of a nature carried out by a clerk or a skilled workman. In the case of All India 2025:UHC:1156 Reserve Bank Employees’ Association & another Vs. Reserve Bank of India & another, reported in AIR 1966 SC 305, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “In Ford Motor Company of India v. Ford Motors Staff Union, the Labour Appellate Tribunal correctly pointed out that the question whether a particular workman is a supervisor within or without the definition of “workman” is “ultimately a question of fact, at best one of mixed fact and law….” and “will really depend upon the nature of the industry, the type of work in which he is engaged, the organisational set up of the particular unit of industry and like factor”. The Labour Appellate Tribunal pertinently gave the example that “the nature of the work in the banking industry is in many respects obviously different from the nature and type of work in a workshop department of an engineering or automobile concern”. We agree that we cannot use analogies to find out whether Class II workers here were supervisors or doing mere clerical work. No doubt, as Mr. Chari stated, the work in a bank involves layer upon layer of checkers and checking is hardly supervision but where there is a power of assigning duties and distribution of work there is supervision.” 7. Since the finding returned by learned Labour Court on the status of petitioner is a finding of fact, therefore, there is little scope for interference with such finding, while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manor Kumar Tiwari, J.) 18.02.2025 Aswal 2025:UHC:1156