Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.92 seconds)National Engineering Industries ... vs Shri Shri Kishan Bhageria & Others on 11 November, 1987
9. These tests are not the only
tests. There can be a situation where there
may be other tests to indicate whether the
person is doing supervisory work or not.
However, what is material is to note is that
a supervisor must be in a position to bind
his employer in respect of the decisions
that he has taken or in exercise of such
power have control on them. It is true that
this test to some extent may indicate
functions which are managerial or
administrative in nature. However, this
was the test applied by a learned Single
Judge of the Calcutta High Court in
Mcleod & Co. (Supra) and approved by
the Apex Court in National Engineering
Industries Ltd. V. Shri Kishan Bhageria &
Ors. AIR 1988 SC 329. The Apex Court
therein noticed the distinction between
expression 'supervisory', 'managerial' and
'administrative'. The Apex Court has also
noted that these terms or expression cannot
be put in a water tight compartment.
However, the Apex Court has observed
that on must always look into the main
work and that must be found out from the
main duties. A supervisor is one who
could bind the company to take some kind
of decision on behalf of the company. One
who was reporting merely as to the affairs
of the company and making assessment for
: 17 : (RC)
the purpose of reporting was not a
supervisor. The Court therefore will have
to bear in mind these tests while
examining, as to what is the main work of
an employee."
Anand Regional Co. Op Oil S. Union Ltd vs Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah on 8 August, 2006
17. Similarly, in a recent authority reported as Anand
Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers Union Ltd. Vs.
Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah 2006 III LLJ 767, Hon'ble
Supreme Court while dealing with the case of an employee
working as Assistant Executive in the Quality Control
Department of the management, in which the issue was whether
the claimant was "workman" or not observed in paragraphs 11
to 17 as under:
"11. In the disciplinary proceeding
while asserting that he did not take part, the
Respondent in his evidence stated that he
was the Head of the Department and there
was no officer superior to him except the
Managing Director. To a query made,
whether the employees named by him were
under his control; he, however, stated that
: 18 : (RC)
as a senior he gives guidance. He, however,
did not state that he was authorized to
initiate any departmental proceedings
against his subordinates.
Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. vs The Workmen on 7 February, 1969
16. The precise question came up for
consideration in Ananda Bazar Patrika (P)
Ltd. vs. Workmen 1970 (3) SCC 248 :
Workmen Of Messrs Firestone Tyre ... vs Management & Others (With Connected ... on 6 March, 1973
v. Ludh Budh Singh, (1972) 1 Lab LJ 180 =
(AIR 1972 SC 1031) after a review of all
the earlier cases, has summarised the
principles flowing out of those decisions. It
has been emphasised that when no enquiry
has been held by an employer or when the
enquiry held has been found to be
defective, the employer has got a right to
adduce evidence before the Tribunal
justifying its action. The stage at which the
: 24 : (RC)
employer should invoke the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal to allow him to adduce
evidence before it, has also been discussed
in the said decision.
Aligarh Muslim University And Ors vs Mansoor Ali Khan on 28 August, 2000
20. Similarly, in another authority reported as Aligarh
: 25 : (RC)
Muslim University & Ors. Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan 2001 (91)
FLR 28, Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an
argument observed in paragraph 19 as under :
"The principle that in addition to breach of
natural justice, prejudice must also be
proved has been developed in several cases.
M/S. Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd vs Manorama Sirsi on 6 January, 2004
Therefore, a declaration that
the transfer order is illegal and void, in
act amounts to imposing the employee
on the employer inspite of the fact that
the employee allegedly does not obey
order of his/her superiors in the
management of the employer and such
a relief cannot be granted, vide Pearlite
Liners (P) Ltd. Vs. Manorama Sirsi,
2004 (100) FLR 797 (SC)."
The Navy Act, 1957
The Army Act, 1950
John Joseph Khokar vs Bhadange B. S. And Others. on 2 September, 1997
In John Joseph Khokar V. B.S.
Bhadange & two others, 1997 II CLR 921.
I observed, "where the employee possess
the power of assigning duties and
distribution of work such authority of
employee may be indicative of his being
supervisor doing supervision. In a broad
sense supervisor is one who has authority
over others : someone who superintends
and direct others. An employee who in the
interest of the employer has responsibility
to directly control the work done by the
other workers and if the work is not done
correctly to guide them to do it correctly in
accordance with norms shall certainly be a
supervisor. A supervisory work may be
contradistinguished from managerial and
administrative work, and so also a
supervisor from manager and administrator.
Supervisor's predominant function is to see
that work is done by workers under him in
accordance with the norms laid down by the
management : he has no power to take any
disciplinary action.........................................
....................................................................."