JUDGMENT

O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.:—The Central Government the appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi : "Whether the action of the management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, New Delhi in dismissing Shri S. K. Verma, Development Officer in Jullundur Branch of the Corporation, with effect from February 78,1969 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?" The Life Insurance Corporation promptly raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the reference on the ground that Shri S. K. Verma was not a workman.

2. There appear to be three preliminary objections which have become quite the fashion to be raised by all employers, particularly public sector corporations, whenever an industrial dispute is referred to a tribunal for adjudication. One objection is that there is no industry, a second that there is no industrial dispute and the third that the workman is no workman. It is a pity that when the Central Government, in all solemnity, refers an industrial dispute for adjudication, a public sector corporation which is an instrumentality of the State instead of welcoming a decision by the Tribunal on merits so as to absolve itself of any charge of being a bad employer or of victimisation etc. should attempt to evade decision on merits by raising such objections and never thereby satisfied, carry the matter other times to the High Court and to the SC, wasting public time and money. We expect public sector corporations to be model employers and model litigants. We do not expect them to attempt to avoid adjudication or to indulge in luxurious litigation and drag : workmen from court to court merely to vindicate, not justice, but some rigid technical stand taken up by them. We hope that public sector corporation will henceforth refrain from raising needless objections, fighting needless litigations and adopting needless postures.

3. The Industrial Tribunal upheld the preliminary objection and ruled that Development officers in the Life Insurance Corporation of India are not workmen within the meaning of S. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The reference was therefore held to be incompetent. A writ petition filed by S. K. Verma was dismissed in limine by the Delhi High Court. S. K. Verma has come before us under Art. 136 of the Constitution.

4. Workman was originally defined by S. 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 as meaning :

"any person employed (including an apprentice) in any industry to do any skilled manual or clerical work for hire or reward and includes, for the purpose of any proceedings under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, a workman discharged during that dispute but does not include any person employed in the naval, military or air service of the Crown."

The definition underwent a substantial amendment in 1956 and this is how it stands now :-

"Workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and for the purposes of any proceedings under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person -

(i) who is subject to the Army Act, 1950, or the Air Force Act, 1950 or the Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934; or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature o