The petitioner ultimately, vide separate orders, dated herein assails a common order, dated 16.10.2002, the respondents were dismissed 24.11.2006, passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, in I.D. Nos.234 and 235 of 2002, by filing these two writ petitions. The Industrial Disputes were raised by one Sri Balasubrahmanyam Chandra Kaladharan and Sri Y. China Sambasiva Rao, challenging the orders of their removal, on disciplinary grounds. For the sake of convenience, these two employees are referred to as respondents 1 and 2, respectively.

2. The petitioner is a Mutually Aided Co-operative Society, having its branches at various places. The owners of the lorries in the area are the members of the petitioner Society, and it was established with an object of providing service to the vehicles owned by its members. The 1 st respondent was initially appointed as a Sales Clerk, and thereafter promoted to the posts of Store Keeper, Assistant Branch Manager, and ultimately, as Branch Manager. By 22.4.2002, his salary was Rs.5,252/- per month. The 2nd respondent was initially appointed as Pump Operator, and thereafter earned promotions as Sales Clerk, Store Keeper and Assistant Manager. His emoluments till 22.4.2002 were Rs.4,394/per month. Both of them were working by that date, at Gollapudi Branch.

3. Charge-sheets, dated 16.5.2002, were issued to both the respondents, alleging that on 18.4.2002, the Stores Director, by name Sri P. Naga Bhushanam, inspected the stores at Gollapudi Branch, and he found that the cleaner of the Diesel Tanker was pouring buckets of water into it, and when asked, he is said to have replied that respondents 1 and 2 are selling different quantities of diesel oil outside, and to replenish the same, water was being poured into tanker. Respondents submitted their explanations, and thereafter, domestic enquiry was conducted. The charges levelled against the respondents were held proved, and ultimately, vide separate orders, dated, 16.10.2002, the respondents were dismissed from service. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents raised industrial disputes under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short “the Act).

4. The petitioner filed separate counter-affidavits, before the Labour Court, raising an objection as to the very maintainability of the industrial disputes. It was pleaded that both the respondents were performing managerial functions, and they do not answer the description of 'workman', as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. The Labour Court took up the same as preliminary issue, and on consideration of the points urged by the parties, it passed the impugned order, overruling the objection and holding that the respondents are workmen, notwithstanding the designation of their posts and the emoluments drawn by them.

5. Sri M Pandu Ranga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 1st respondent was a Manager, having direct supervisory and managerial control over 30 persons in the branch, and the 2nd respondent had almost equal powers in the same branch. He contends that both from the point of view of the nature of functions discharged by the respondents, as well as the salaries drawn by them, they cannot be treated as workmen. Learned Counsel points out that though several precedents, which are nearer to the issue, were cited, the Labour Court disregarded the same, and rejected the contention of the petitioner.

6. Sri M Pitchaiah, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the branch of the petitioner society did not have any functional independence, and even for minute transactions, a Branch Manager; not to speak of Assistant Branch Manager, had to depend upon the instructions from the Head Office. He contends that neither any powers of appointment, nor of dismissal of subordinate employees, was conferred upon the respondents. He raises an objection as to the very exercise of taking up the preliminary issue by the Tribunal. He places reliance upon the