N.J. PANDYA, J.:---First of the two petitions is filed by the company and the second one is filed by the employee who claims to be the workman. Relationship of master and servant is not in dispute. According to the company, the employee was part of managerial staff and therefore he would not be a workman as per definition under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Needless to say, according to the employee, he is a workman under the said definition.

2.The events of termination was in the year 1982 when section 2(s) of the said Act as originally provided was in force. By Amendment Act, 1982 some of the clauses of the said Act were amended and one of them happens to be the said section 2(s). The amendment was not brought into force forthwith. It was brought into force in the year 1984. As against the termination order dated 15-9-1982, Reference could be made in the year 1984 as by that time the amended section 2(s) was brought into force. In the trial Court, reliance was placed on the amendment as well and as will be presently seen the trial Court has held in favour of the employee on the point whether he is a workman or not and this finding has been given mainl