R. P. SETHI, C. J.

( 1 ) THE purpose and object of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereafter called 'the Act') has successfully been frustrated by the appellant by having resort to technicalities of law and procedural wrangles. The respondent has been subjected to uncalled for litigation for over a period of 17 years. All efforts have been made by the appellant-employers to force starvation upon the respondent and thereby deprive him of the benefits of the orders or award passed in his favour, though after protracted litigation. The controversy between the parties was not such which could have been permitted to prolong for a period of about two decades.

( 2 ) THE only question sought to be adjudicated between the parties is as to whether the respondent, who was admittedly employed by the appellants as Geologist, was a workman or not within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act. Taking advantage of the loose definition of the workman it has been vehemently urged by the appellants that as the respondent was allegedly exercising supervisory powers, he could not be deemed to be a workman under the Act.

( 3 ) THE facts necessary for determining the real controversy between the par

Click Here to Read the rest of this document