The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of an employee's status as a workman under the industrial disputes act, 1947, based on the nature of duties, remuneration, and control over subordinates.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the award of the labour court dated April 3, 1998 where, on a preliminary point the labour court held that the petitioner is not a workman under Secrion 2 (s) of the industrial disputes act, 1947 and consequently passed an award dated June 19, 1998 rejecting his application filed under Secrion 10 (4-a) of the industrial disputes act in which he has challenged the Orderof termination.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner in brief are as under:he was appointed as a shift operator (process) on a salary of Rs. 600-00 per month on Februaary 9, 1976. His appointment was subsequently confirmed on Februaary 12, 1977. Annexure-A is the Orderof appointment. Annexure-B is the Orderof confirmation. Petitioner was promoted as junior officer (process) with effect from March 1, 1982. His salary was raised from Rs. 600-00 to Rs. 1100-00. Annexure-C, dated March 9, 1982 is the letter evidencing the said fact. He was called upon to enter into a service contract with the company together with general conditions which was enclosed to the said letter. Accordingly, the petitioner entered into a contract. While he was so working, on May 13/14, 1991 he was served with a charge-sheet accusing him of certain misconduct. Annexure-E is the copy of the said charge-sheet. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying all those allegations. Thereafter, an enquiry came to be ordered. In mid-stream the enquiry was abandoned. Then, invoking clause-9 of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent he was terminated from services on August 24, 1991. A copy of the said termination Orderis produced at Annexure-m. Aggrieved by the said Orderof termination, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Secrion 10 (4-a) of the industrial disputes (karnataka amendment) act, 1987 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the act' ). After service of notice, respondent had entered appearance. They filed a detailed statement of objections denying the allegations made against them in the claim statement. They contended that the petitioner is not a workman and therefore the labour court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. They also contested the claim of the petitioner on merits. On these pleadings, the labour court framed three issues on July 27, 1993. They are as under : (1) whether the respondent proves that the petitioner is not a workman and as such the claim petition is not tenable? (2) whether the respondent was justified in terminating the service of the petitioner? (3) what reliefs the petitioner is entitled to?

( 3 ) ON the aforesaid issues, the labour court recorded evidence. On behalf of the respondent-management, one Sri ramarao kulkarni, assistant personnel officer, was examined as m. w. 1, Sri umesh, advocate, who conducted the enquiry was examined as m. w. 2 and Sri h. n. nagaraj, personnel manager, was examined as m. w. 3. On behalf of the workman he was examined w. w. 1. It is thereafter during the course of arguments it was contended, that issue No. 1 has to be heard and decided as preliminary issue. Therefore, the learned judge of the labour court heard arguments on both sides only on the question of issue No. 1 and on appreciation of the evidence, held that the petitioner is not a workman and therefore the application was not maintainable. This Ordercame to be passed on April 3, 1998. Consequently, he dismissed the claim application by the award dated June 19, 1998 in kid No. 15 of 1992. Aggrieved by the said two awards the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Sri v. S. Naik assailing the award of the labour court contended, the labour court finding is not based on the evidence, it is a case of misreading of evidence and misreading of documents on which the respondents themselves rely on and therefore, he submits, a case for interference made out. He further contended, a reading of Annexure-C, on the