JUDGMENT

VARADARAJAN, J.:—This civil appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 11-1-1982 dismissing in limine Writ Petition No. 26 of 1982 which had been filed by the appellant Ved Prakash Gupta. The appellant was an employee of the first respondent M/s. Dolton Cable India (P) Ltd., Faridabad, Haryana. He was given a charge-sheet by the management on 5-8 79 and dismissed from service on 13-9-1979 after having been found guilty of the charge in the domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer who has been examined as one of the witnesses on the side of the management before the Labour Court at a later stage. There was a reference of dispute arising out of the dismissal of the appellent to the Labour Court, Faridabad in Reference No. 143 of 1980 under Section 10 (i) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Labour Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the claimant Shri Ved Prakash Gupta was in the position of a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act? If so, to what effect?

(ii) Whether the reference is bad in law in view of the objections raised in the written statement? If so, to what effect?

(iii) Whether proper and valid domestic enquiry has been conducted? If so to what effect?

(iv) Whether the termination of the service of the workman is proper, justified and in order? If not to what relie is he entitled?

2. Issues 1 and 2 were tried as preliminary issues by the Labourt Court. The Labour Court held on issue No. 1 that the appellant is not a workman within the meaning of the definition of workman contained in Section 2 (s) of the Act. Consequently, it was held that the reference is bad in law in the light of the objections raised by the management in the written statement. The Labour Court held that there was no need to consider the other two issues and passed an award against the appellant. It was against that award that the appellant filed the writ petition which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court in limine on 11-1-1982. This Court granted special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court and later directed the Labour Court to try the other issues on the basis that the appellant is a workman as per the Act. The Labour Court accordingly tried the other two issues and held that though the domestic enquiry was fair and proper the finding of the enquiry officer was perverse. The Labour Court has observed.

"The Enquiry Officer should have given findings according to the evidence before him in the enquiry proceeding. He has neglected Exts. M-4 and M-6 while giving the findings in the enquiry. He also failed to summon the necessary witnesses and rejected the request of the workman for challenging those witnesses."

3. The Labour Court found that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the appellant was disproportionate to the gravity of the charge framed against him and that he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

4. The management filed Writ Petition No. 4567 of 1982 in the High Court against the order of the Labour Court holding that the finding of the Enquiry Officer was perverse and that the appellant is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The writ petition has been withdrawn to this Court by order dated 9-7-1983 to be heard along with the civil appeal. This is how the civil appeal and the writ petition have come up before us.

5. Arguments were advanced before us by Mr. O. P Malhotra appearing for the appellant and Mr. V. P. Chaudhary appearing for the management on two points viz (1) whether the appellant was a workman at the relevant time and (2) whether his dismissal is valid in law.

6. The charge framed against the appellant was as follows :

"You were on duty on 31-7-1979 and 1-8-1979 from 8 a m. to 4 P. m. It was reported against you as under :

On 31-7-1979 a person from M/s. Guru mukh Dass