- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal has wrongly discussed the evidences and came to a wrong finding that the petitioner is not a workman and as such, the reference was bad and accordingly, the same was declared to be not maintainable. He has further submitted that the inquiry conducted by the management was bad since S.M. Khurana has no authority to conduct the inquiry or dismiss him. In that view of the matter, the award is bad and fit to be set aside. On the other hand learned counsel for the company has submitted that it will appear from the reference itself which reads as under: "Whether S.D.M. Karan, Assistant Foreman, Ticket No. 3300/01513/1 is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. If so, whether dismissal of Sri Karan is proper? If not, whether he should be reinstated on work or/and should get compensation?"
(3.) It is submitted that since the Court has given conclusive finding in deciding point No. 1 that the petitioner is not a workman, in that view of the matter he has rightly stated that the reference was not maintainable under the Industrial Disputes Act can be raised by the workman and no other employees who are working as supervisory staffs. It is further submitted that it will appear that in spite of the finding with regard to point No. 3 that the disciplinary inquiry held by Mr. S.M. Khurana was not just and proper, but evidences were led before the Tribunal and after discussing the evidences in Para No. 18, the Tribunal has come to a conclusive finding that the workman Mr. S.D.M. Karan was caught red-handed by the Security staff along with objectionable material and came to a clear finding that Mr. S.D.M. Karan is guilty of misconduct.;