Held, no evidence has been placed on record by the respondent management to draw conclusion that the petitioner was not under the supervision of his superiors or the petitioner himself was the final authority so far his innovative ideas or thoughts were concerned, and in the absence of any such evidence placed on record from the side of the respondent management, the exclusion of the petitioner from the definition of 'workman' in the face of evidence placed on record by the petitioner sufficiently proves that his nature of duties were skillful and technical in nature and therefore the job of 'draftsman' as assigned to the petitioner cannot be said to fall outside the ambit and scope of definition of 'workman' envisaged under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.
