Judgment

G. N. RAY, J.:- Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 27,1992 passed by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing in limine Letters Patent Appeal No. 935 of 1992. The said Letters Patent Appeal was preferred against the judgment dated August 11, 1992 passed by the Single Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4410 of 1986. By the aforesaid judgment, the Writ Petition moved by the respondent M/s. Carona Sahu Company Limited was allowed and the award of the Labour Court Jalandhar dated April 21, 1986 in Reference No. 389 of 1981 directing the respondent Company to reinstate the appellant Shri S. K. Maini with full backwages was set aside by the High Court.

3. The appellant Shri S. K. Maini was working as the Shop Manager/ In charge of the respondent-Company M/ s. Carona Sahu Company Limited. On an allegation of misconduct against the appellant, a domestic enquiry was caused by the respondent Company and by order dated March 12,1981 the service of the appellant was terminated. On September 28, 1981, Government of Punjab referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Jalandhur; "whether the termination of service of Shri S. K. Maini is justified and in order? If not, to what relief and amount of compensation is he entitled?"

4. Before the Labour Court a preliminary objection was raised by the respondent-Company as to the maintainability of the said reference by contending that Shri S. K. Maini was not a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because being a shop Manager/In charge of the shop, he had been discharging mainly managerial and administrative functions and had been supervising the works of other employees subordinate to him for running the said shop and even if he was a Supervisor at the relevant time. Shri S. K. Maini was drawing a salary of more than Rs. 500/ - per month. Hence, he could not be held to be a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, the reference was not maintainable and Shri Maini was not entitled to get any relief from the Labour Court.

5. The Labour Court, Jalandhar, inter alia came to the finding that although Shri Maini was a shop Manager/ In charge of the shop but his duties were mainly clerical and he had no independent authority to appoint or discharge the employees and to charge-sheet them and his functions could not be held mainly to be supervisory or managerial. Accordingly, Shri Maini was a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court also came to the finding that the domestic enquiry was not properly conducted against him and reasonable opportunity to defend in the domestic enquiry was not given to Shri Maini by not allowing Shri Maini to be represented by a lawyer. The Labour Court also held that the enquiring officer Shri Iqbal Singh was the Standing Counsel of the respondent-Company for disciplinary action to be taken against the employees of the Company. The said Iqbal Singh an advocate used to be engaged to contest the claims of the concerned workmen of the company in various legal proceedings. Such Standing Counsel was likely to have a bias in favour of the Company which was his master and consequently prejudice against the concerned employee. It should, therefore, be held that he lacked impartiality and objectivity to Judge the case of the concerned workman. Accordingly, the finding recorded by such officer against Shri Maini was not fair and proper. It may be noted here that the Labour Court refused to grant permission to the management to prove the case of the Company of a bona fide action before the Labour Court by leading independent evidence on the ground that such opportunity would tantamount to permitting the management to improve upon its evidence already adduced and the same was bound to cause harassment to the concerned workman. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court directed for reinstatement of Sh