Dominant nature of duties test: incidental supervisory powers do not exclude a primarily clerical employee from workman status.

An employee is excluded from the definition of workman under Section 2(s)(iv) only if the dominant nature of the duties actually performed is supervisory. Where the principal work is clerical, incidental powers such as allocating work, granting leave during office hours, or recommending leave do not alter the character of employment. On the facts, the employee's main duties were maintaining the cash-book and preparing returns, so the post remained clerical. The employee was therefore not employed in a supervisory capacity and continued to fall within the statutory definition of workman.

---

---

Issues: Whether the employee was employed in supervisory capacity so as to fall outside the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The determining test is the main and principal nature of the duties actually performed. Where the substantial work is clerical, the mere fact that some incidental supervisory functions are also exercised does not convert the employment into supervisory employment. On the evidence, the employee's principal duties were maintaining the cash-book and preparing returns. The powers shown were limited to allocating some work, permitting leave during office hours, and recommending leave applications. Those minor supervisory functions did not outweigh the clerical character of the post.

Conclusion: The employee was not employed in supervisory capacity and remained a workman within the statutory definition.

Ratio Decidendi: The classification of an employee under Section 2(s)(iv) depends on the dominant nature of the duties actually performed, and incidental supervisory functions do not displace a primarily clerical character of employment.

---