https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180614 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. en-us Fri, 07 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:28:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180614 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180614