6. Drawing our attention to the judgments of this Court compiled in the form of typed set of papers, the learned senior counsel for the employee made the following submissions: (i) In Industrial Law, interpreted and applied in the perspective of Part IV of the Constitution, the benefit of reasonable doubt on law and facts, if there be such doubt, must go to the weaker section, Labour6; (ii) Concurrent findings of facts rendered by the Courts below cannot be interfered with by the writ Court7; (iii) The determining factor for a person to be qualified as “workman” as defined under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act is the nature of work done by him and not merely on the designation of his post8. Whether or not an employee is a “workman” under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act is required to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties and functions; and the designation of an employee is not of 6 K.C.P. Employees Association v. K.C.P. Ltd (1978) 2 SCC 42 7 Southern Ispat Ltd v.