RAJIV SHARMA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the opposite party No. 2, the Deputy Labour Commissioner/Conciliation Officer the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. It has been vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that while passing the impugned order the opposite party No. 2 has committed an error in deciding the petitioner is a Workman which solely lies within the domain of the Labour Court. He further submitted that opposite party No. 2 has failed to consider the material fact that the petitioner had never been designated as Manager and was paid salary of Rs. 3000/ - as a workman and that in the pay certificate issued by the emplower/opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 there is no mention of his designation as Manager.
(3.) PLACING reliance on a Apex Court decision in Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1959 (59) FLR 734 (SC) learned Counsel for the contended that the dispute whether the persons raising the dispute are workmen or not, the same cannot be decided by the Government in exercise of its administration function. Thus the Conciliation Officer has exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that the petitioner is not a workman.;