VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA,J. - (1.) Aggrieved of the award/order dated 14.5.2007 passed by Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Alwar while answering the reference in positive and in favour of the respondent-workman holding him to be a 'workman' and further declaring termination of his employment vide order dated 12.5.2001, as illegal and invalid; the petitioner-employer has approached this Court praying for the following reliefs:- "(1) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the entire record pertaining to this case may kindly be called for and examined. (2) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 14.5.2007 given by the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Alwar may kindly be quashed and set aside and consequently the impugned retrenchment order dated 12.5.2001 may kindly be upheld. (3) By an appropriate writ, order or direction any other appropriate relief to which the petitioner is found entitled to may also kindly be granted in his favour."
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy are that the respondent-workman aggrieved of his retrenchment order dated 12.5.2001, raised an industrial dispute leading to reference by the appropriate Government. On an analysis of the pleadings of the parties, the evidence adduced and materials available on record, the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Alwar (for short 'the Tribunal') made the impugned award dated 14.5.2007. The Tribunal recorded a specific finding for violation of Section 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'Act of 1947).
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-employer, Mr. Rajeev Surana with Mr. Hemant Taylor, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, has raised two fold submissions while assailing the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned award. Firstly, for the respondent-workman was appointed in a supervisory capacity, and therefore, he was not a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947. Secondly, since the petitioner employer was operating on all-India basis and had its centers throughout the country, therefore, the matter should have been raised before the Central Industrial Tribunal.;