Supervisory capacity excludes a doctor from 'workman' status, defeating Section 25-F protection on termination.

An employee who, alongside technical or professional duties, exercises control and supervision over subordinate staff falls within a supervisory capacity and is excluded from the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the facts, the doctor was in charge of the first aid post and supervised staff including a nurse, attendant, sweeper and ambulance driver, so his role was not confined to medical treatment alone. As he was not a workman, the protections associated with Section 25-F did not apply, and the termination of the ad hoc appointment was held valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent doctor was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the termination of his ad hoc appointment attracted the protections of Section 25-F of that Act.

Analysis: The respondent was posted as the in-charge of the first aid post while on duty and had subordinate staff such as a male nurse, nursing attendant, sweeper and ambulance driver under him. The evidence showed that he exercised control and supervision over those employees in addition to rendering medical services. The decisive question was not whether his duties were technical in part, but whether he was employed in a supervisory capacity. On the facts found, his role went beyond mere treatment of patients and included supervision of subordinate staff.

Conclusion: The respondent was not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the award based on Section 25-F could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned award and judgment were set aside, and the termination was held valid.

Ratio Decidendi: An employee who, along with technical or professional duties, exercises control and supervision over subordinate staff is employed in a supervisory capacity and is excluded from the definition of workman.

---