https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198686 Employee status under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act depends on the substance of the duties actually performed, not the label attached to the post. Routine checking and reporting on behalf of management do not by themselves make an employee a supervisor; supervisory status requires authority to direct work or exercise independent judgment over other employees. On the evidence, the respondent's functions were mainly reporting and checking, so he was treated as a workman. Section 28A of the Rajasthan Shops & Establishments Act did not create repugnancy with the Industrial Disputes Act or curtail that remedy, because the two enactments operated as supplemental rather than inconsistent measures, and the shorter limitation period did not limit the wider industrial dispute remedy. en-us Wed, 11 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Feb 2018 14:33:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198686 Employee status under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act depends on the substance of the duties actually performed, not the label attached to the post. Routine checking and reporting on behalf of management do not by themselves make an employee a supervisor; supervisory status requires authority to direct work or exercise independent judgment over other employees. On the evidence, the respondent's functions were mainly reporting and checking, so he was treated as a workman. Section 28A of the Rajasthan Shops & Establishments Act did not create repugnancy with the Industrial Disputes Act or curtail that remedy, because the two enactments operated as supplemental rather than inconsistent measures, and the shorter limitation period did not limit the wider industrial dispute remedy. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198686