JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Shivraj Gaonkar for the petitioner. The respondents though served, neither appeared through any representative nor any Advocate. Since the petition concerns the dues payable to a workman and has been pending since the year 2010, it is not possible to adjourn the matter any further.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the award dated 26.05.2010 made by the Labour Court-II, Government of Goa at Panaji in Case No. Ref. IT/92/07 holding that the petitioner herein was not a workman as defined in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (said Act), and therefore, the reference was not maintainable.

3. Mr. Gaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset pointed out that the Labour Court was not justified in deciding only the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents (employer). He submits that the Labour Court in the matter of this nature, was duty bound to decide all the issues which arose in the matter.

4. Mr. Gaonkar submits that in any case, the impugned Judgment and Order is vitiated by perversity and contains errors apparent on the face of the record. He submits that mere nomenclature as “accounts supervisor” can never be c