JUDGMENT
M.L. Pendse, J.
1. Respondent no. 1 joined the services of appellant – Reserve Bank of India in year 1966 in the capacity of a clerk. The Reserve Bank is running a hostel for training of the officers from year 1961 onwards and hostel supervisor is selected from the category of clerks. In year 1978, respondent no. had applied for the post of hostel supervisor and was interviewed and selected. Respondent no. 1 joined the duties of hostel supervisor on June 15, 1982 and was reverted back to the cadre of clerks on August 4, 1984. It is not in dispute that the post of hostel supervisor is an ex-cadre post and the appointee does not cease to be a member of the parent cadre. The union representing the employees of the Reserve Bank sought a reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Central Government, by order dated October 7, 1986, referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Central Industrial Tribunal :
“Whether the action of the management of Reserve Bank of India in relation to its Bankers Training College at Bombay is not classifying the Hostel Supervisor as ‘Workman’ under the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 considering the nature of duties performed by him, and thereby denying the benefits to him of 8 hours duty, weekly rest, national and bank holidays etc. is justified ? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?”
2. On receipt of the reference, respondent no. 1 filed a statement of claim, inter alia, claiming that the hostel supervisor has been classified as Class III workman under various Awards and Settlements. It was further claimed that the dominant nature of duties performed by a hostel supervisor are not supervisory in character and, consequently, hostel supervisor is required to be held to be a workman in accordance with Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The management resisted the claim contending that the post of hostel supervisor demands duties which are supervisory in character and merely because hostel supervisor incidentally performs some clerical work, that will not make the holder of the post of workman. Respondent no. 1 gave evidence before the Tribunal and considering the material on record, the Tribunal declared its Award on September 19, 1988, inter alia, holding that the hostel supervisor is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The Tribunal further held that the action of the management of the Reserve Bank of India in denying the benefit of 8 hours duty, weekly rest, national and bank holidays etc. to a hostel supervisor was justifiable. The Award declared by the Central Industrial Tribunal was challenged by respondent no. 1 by filing Writ Petition No. 2038 of 1989 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before learned Single Judge sitting on the Original Side of this Court. The learned Judge, by the impugned judgment dated July 5, 1993, disagreed with the finding of the Tribunal that the hostel supervisor was not a workman. The learned Judge recorded the finding that the hostel supervisor is a Workman and thereafter remanded the proceedings to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal in the light of the observations made in the judgment. The decision of the learned single Judge is under challenge.
3. Mr. Rele, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the learned single Judge was in error in concluding that hostel supervisor is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act. It was urged that the list of duties allotted to hostel supervisor clearly established that the hostel supervisor performs duties which are supervisory in character. Mr. Rele further submitted that the appointment to the post of hostel supervisor is made from the cadre of the clerks and those who opt for the said post. It was pointed out that the hostel supervisor enjoys several perquisites while discharging the duties and is also entitled to receive special allowance. Mr. Ganguli, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, on the other hand, urged that the decision of the learned single Judge is not required to be disturbed because the dominant nature of duties performed by hostel supervisor are not supervisory in character. Mr. Ganguli further submitted that the post of hostel supervisor is bracketed with the post of clerk in two Awards declared by Iyer in March 1986 and by Dighe in 1983. In view of the rival contentions, short question which requires determination is whether the duties performed by hostel supervisor are supervisory in character.
4. The principles as to how to determine whether a person holding the post of a supervisor is a workman or other wise are well settled by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court and it is suffice to make reference to decision reported in 1985 LIC 1008 Arkal Govind Rai Rao v. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd. Bombay. the Supreme Court observed in Paragraph 6 –
“Where an employee has multifarious duties and a question is raised whether he is a workman or someone other than a workman the Court must find out what are the primary and basic duties of the person concerned and if he is incidentally asked to do some other work, may not necessarily be in tune with the basic duties, these additional duties cannot change the character and status of the person concerned. In other words, the dominant purpose of employment must be first taken into consideration and the gloss of some additional duties must be rejected while determining the status and character of the person.”
It is well settled that the nomenclature or the designation of the post is not conclusive to determine whether a person is a workman or otherwise and the Court must examine the duties to be performed by the person concerned. It is, therefore, necessary to ascertain what duties are performed by respondent no. 1 while holding the post of hostel supervisor.
In the present case, respondent no. 1 has annexed list of duties to the statement of claim filed before the Tribunal. The duties are divided under five heads. The first heading is ‘upkeep of the hostel and all arrangements connected therewith’ while the second heading is ‘supervising the work of hostel staff’. The third heading is ‘looking after catering arrangements etc. in absence of catering supervisor’ and the fourth and fifth headings are ‘working as caretaker for college, the hostel, the single room officers’ flats and guest rooms’ and ‘such other duties etc.’ respectively. The list of duties recites that total staff under the control of hostel supervisor is 70 in number and which ‘includes head cook, cleaners, waiters, gardeners, electricians, carpenters etc. The list of duties sets out that the hostel supervisor has to recommend leave and to prepare salary statements and also to engage casual labourers as and when required. The hostel supervisor is also required to make project arrangement in classrooms and to provide for pest control, fire control etc. A perusal of the list of duties leaves no manner of doubt that a large staff of about 70 persons is under the control of the hostel supervisor and the hostel supervisor is the head of the administration in the hostel. The control and the regulation required to be exercised by hostel supervisor leaves no manner of doubt that his duties and functions are supervisory in character. Mr. Ganguli submitted that the hostel supervisor is required to maintain registers and write musters and this work is clerical in nature and, therefore, hostel supervisor should be treated as a workman. It is not possible to accede to the submission of the learned counsel. As observed by the Supreme Court, it is essential to ascertain what is the dominant nature of work performed by the hostel supervisor and merely because some incidental work is done which is clerical in nature, that cannot lead to the conclusion that the hostel supervisor is a workman. In our judgment, the learned single Judge was not right in concluding that the Tribunal had committed an error in coming to the conclusion that hostel supervisor is not a workman.
5. Mr. Ganguli relied on the Awards declared by Iyer and Dighe to urge that the post of hostel supervisor is bracketed with other posts which are held by persons who are workman. The issue as to whether the hostel supervisor is a workman did not arise for consideration in both the Awards and the post of hostel supervisor was bracketed with the other grades with reference to the wages drawn. As mentioned hereinabove, respondent no. 1 was appointed as a hostel supervisor, which is an ex-cadre post, and respondent no. a, after two years, was reverted back to the cadre of the clerk.
In our judgment, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the hostel supervisor is not a workman is correct and cannot be faulted with.
6. It must be also noted that the person holding the post of hostel supervisor is paid special allowance which initially was Rs. 50/- per month and was increased from time to time to Rs. 225/- per month. In addition, the hostel supervisor is entitled to free residential accommodation and use of electricity upto 40 units per month free of cost. Hostel supervisor is also provided with residential telephone with direct dialing facility. Mr. Ganguli submitted that these benefits are conferred because the hostel supervisor is required to work from 6.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. and these perquisites are provided to enable the hostel supervisor to perform his duties satisfactorily. It is undoubtedly true that the perquisites and special allowance are provided because of the nature of the duties to be performed by the hostel supervisor. It also cannot be overlooked that respondent no. 1 had opted for the post of hostel supervisor voluntarily and after being fully aware as to what was the nature of duties of a hostel supervisor. In our judgment, on perusal of the list of duties furnished by respondent no. 1 the conclusion is inescapable that hostel supervisor is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act. In view of this finding, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is required to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and judgment dated July 5, 1993 recorded by learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 2038 of 1989 is set aside and the Award dated September 19, 1988 declared by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2., Bombay, in reference No. CGIT-2/45 of 1986 is upheld. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.