( 1 ) THE petitioner employed as a Security Superintendent by the respondent-company (hereinafter referred to as the management) has challenged the older of dismissal passed against him with effect from 5-6-1985 on the ground that the said order of dismissal is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and it also smacks of victimisation and unfair labour practice. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ved Praksh Gupta -v.- Delton Cable India (P) ltd, AIR1984 SC 914 , [1984 (48 )FLR417 ], (1984 )I LLJ546 SC , 1984 (1 )SCALE474 , (1984 )2 SCC569 , [1984 ]3 SCR169 , 1984 (1 )SLJ569 (SC ), 1984 (16 )UJ523 (SC ) and in the light of the amendment to Section 2 (s) of the. D. Act (for short the Act) raising the upper limit of salaries drawn by supervisors to Rs. 1600/- so as to enable them to qualify themselves for the relief to which they are entitled to under the Act, there could be no doubt that the petitioner was a workman though he was holding the post of Security superintendent. Thus, the various contentions raised by the petitioner could have been the subject matter of an industrial dispute as provided for under the Act, but the manag