S. K. Verma vs Mahesh Chandra And Another on 2 September, 1983
3. Mr. Grover, learned counsel for the employee submits that the finding of the Labour Court holding that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act is perverse, as it is contrary to the evidence on record. According to him, a careful perusal of the nature of duties and functions of the petitioner-employee will clearly go to show that he was a workman doing clerical work within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. None of duties and functions of the petitioner, according to the counsel, can popularly be termed as administrative in nature. Reliance is placed in this connection on the decision of the Supreme Court in S. K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra & Ors. 1983 II LLJ 429 and AIR 1958 SC 130.