S.B. Sinha. J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The Respondent was working as an Assistant Executive in the Quality Control Department of the Appellant Cooperative Society. On an allegation that he had committed a misconduct, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated relying on or on the basis of a letter dated 16.9.1993 of Shri Shreedharani, the then Chief Executive working in the Appellants, addressed to the Chairman complaining about the serious misconduct committed by certain employees including the Respondent on 15.9.1993. In the departmental proceeding Shri Shreedharani and other persons were examined, as witnesses. The Enquiry Officer found the Respondent guilty of the alleged misconduct on his part, holding: (a) the respondent held a meeting in the lawns of Appellant without permission and leveled false allegations against his Senior Officer Mr. Shreedharani and behaved badly with him. (b) The respondent alongwith his other colleagues forcibly entered into the cabin of Mr. Shreedharani who was at that point of time in serious discussions with his accountant despite his raising objections to the same. (c) The respondent also threatened Shri Shreedharani by stating inter alia that if he does not leave directly then they will show him the way. (d) The respondent crushed paper into ball and threw towards Shri Shreedharani. (e) The Respondent misbehaved, shouted slogans against Shri Shreedharani and also closed the AC switch of the room where Shri Shreedharani was sitting.
(3.) Punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon him. An industrial dispute was raised culminating in a reference made by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court, Anand on 25.10.1996. Before the Labour Court, the Appellant inter alia raised a contention that in view of the nature of duties performed by the Respondent herein he does not fall within the definition of workman as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act"). The Labour Court negatived the said contention of the Appellant.;