Act, that the employee is discharging the duties of the nature specifically stipulated in Section 2(s) of the Act, namely, manual, skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory. There was some difference of opinion earlier on this issue. After tracing the history and taking into consideration various case laws, the Supreme Court answered this issue, and in the process, settled the controversy by holding that in order to treat a person as workman under the Act, he must be employed to do the work of any of the aforesaid categories. It is not enough that he is not covered by either of the four exceptions to the definition, therefore, it becomes imperative for the workman to show that he is covered by any one of the categories specified in Section 2(s) of the Act. As pointed out above, learned Single Judge, after stating the facts of each case, started with his comments on the awards of the Labour Court by pointing out that the duties being performed by these appellants, which were stated by the Management in their evidence, were not analyzed. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge proceeded to mention the duties which are performed by these workers and pointed out that overall picture which emerges by considering the admitted position, reveals that these appellants were discharging the following duties:-
