1. Vide this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the award of the labour court dated 25.01.2000 by which the labour court has declared the respondent no.1 as a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.D. Act’) and has termed his termination as illegal and ordered for his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

2. Admitted facts are that the respondent no.1 was working with the petitioner as Assistant Weaving Master (in short ‘AVM’). He was appointed vide appointment letter dated 23.03.1982 with effect from 01.05.1982 and his services were terminated on 26.02.1988. The workman had raised the dispute challenging his dismissal and the appropriate authority has referred the dispute vide reference bearing No.F.24 (1338)/89/11461-66 dated 25.04.1989.

3. The labour court on the basis of pleadings of parties had formulated the following issues:

“1. Whether the petitioner is a workman as defined in the I.D. Act?

2. As in terms of reference.”

4. After taking into consideration the evidences of both the parties, the labour court had reached to the conclusion that the claimant was ‘workman’ as defined in the I.D. Act and passed the award dated 25.01.2000.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that the findings of the labour court are perverse. It is submitted that the labour court has not taken into consideration the evidence on record. Its findings thus are contrary to proved facts on record. It is also contended that the intentional concealment of gainful employment on better prospects with other managements from the knowledge of the court by claimant had led the labour court to grant full back wages while ordering his reinstatement. It is also contended that during the pendency of the present writ petition the respondent no.1 had filed an application under Section 17 B of the I.D. Act and in that application the petitioner had produced documents which showed that the respondent had been working in several organisations and this fact had been taken note of by this court, in the order dated 21.05.2002. This court has observed that the respondent no.1 got the employment with Shamken Multifab Limited who had issued a certificate that respondent no.1 joined the organisation on 01.09.1991 and resigned with effect from 31.01.2000. It is argued that it is not that the respondent no.1 had filed false affidavit in this court but he did so even in his evidence before the labour court which was recorded in the year 1999.

6. It is further alleged that neither of the party had raised the contention before the labour court that the workman was employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, yet the labour court has based its findings on question if the workman was employed in managerial or administrative capacity and drawing wages exceeding Rs.1600/- per month. It is submitted that the plea of the petitioner was that the respondent no.1 was working in the supervisory capacity and this fact had been admitted by respondent no.1 in his cross-examination and thus conclusion of the tribunal is contrary to the cogent evidences on record.

7. Except respondent no.1, all other respondents are performa perties.

8. The respondent no.1/workman has challenged the present petition on the ground that the same is not maintainable as this court cannot disturb the findings of a subordinate court in writ jurisdiction unless the findings are perverse or there is an error apparent on the face of the award or it is passed on no evidence. It is submitted that the findings of the labour court are based on the evidences on record. It is further submitted that respondent no.1 was appointed as Assistant Weaving Master and he was performing duties of checking layers of the cloth Manufactured in the mill and was also repairing machines and had no power to transfer the workers in the shift from one machine to another and was not competent to engage the casual labour and