It appears there's missing information. You've provided the case title, court, and date, but no details about the case itself. I need the facts, issues, arguments, and the court's reasoning to create a proper summary. Please provide the case content so I can fulfill your request.

However, I can provide a hypothetical example based on the case title to illustrate the format and style I would use if I had the actual case details.

Hypothetical Case Summary: Section 3(18)(a) in Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946

Short Summary This case concerns the interpretation of "employee" under Section 3(18)(a) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, specifically whether a supervisor with limited managerial functions falls within the definition. The court held that the individual did fall within the definition of employee.

Facts A supervisor, Mr. Sharma, was dismissed from his position at a textile mill. The mill argued that Mr. Sharma was not an "employee" as defined by Section 3(18)(a) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, because he exercised some supervisory functions. Mr. Sharma contended that his supervisory duties were minimal and that he primarily performed manual labor.

Issues Does Mr. Sharma, performing supervisory duties, fall within the definition of "employee" as defined in Section 3(18)(a) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946?

Petitioner's Arguments (Mr. Sharma) Mr. Sharma argued that his supervisory duties were minimal and incidental to his primary role, which involved manual labor. He asserted that he lacked significant managerial control or decision-making authority.

Respondent's Arguments (Textile Mill) The textile mill argued that Mr. Sharma's supervisory functions, regardless of their extent, disqualified him from being considered an "employee" under the Act. They contended that any exercise of supervisory power, however limited, placed him outside the scope of the Act's protection.

Court's Reasoning The court examined the specific duties performed by Mr. Sharma. It determined that while he had some supervisory responsibilities, these were not substantial enough to remove him from the definition of "employee." The court emphasized the importance of considering the primary function of the individual and held that Section 3(18)(a) should be interpreted to protect workers who primarily perform manual or clerical labor, even if they have incidental supervisory duties.

Conclusion The court ruled in favor of Mr. Sharma, holding that he was an "employee" within the meaning of Section 3(18)(a) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The dismissal was deemed unlawful, and Mr. Sharma was ordered to be reinstated.

Please provide the actual case content so I can create an accurate summary.