SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 22.10.2001 passed by Labour Court III, Karkardooma, Delhi whereby the Labour Court held that the termination of the respondent no. 2 by the petitioner was illegal and directed the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.5 lacs in lieu of the reinstatement and full back wages.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent was working with the petitioner firm as Executive Secretary since 12.11.1986. Her services were terminated w.e.f. 10.3.1992 vide letter dated 17.2.1992. She made a representation to the management vide letter dated 28.2.1992 and 20.3.1992. The management revoked the earlier letter of termination and extended her services upto 31.3.1992. Finally, her services were terminated w.e.f. 1.4.1992 vide letter dated 31.3.1992. The respondent raised an industrial dispute alleging that her termination was illegal and the same was referred to the Labour Court in following terms:

"Whether the termination of services of Smt. Kanwaljeet Ghura is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is she entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?"

3. It is undisputed that the designation of the respondent was Executive Secretary and she was attached to Mr. Ashok Behl, Director Management (hereinafter called the Director). The respondent claimed that nature of her duties was to take shorthand dictation notes, typing those notes on electronic typewriter or computer, handling of correspondence, fixing of appointments of the Director, doing filing work, handling petty cash and operating PABX board. She was a 'workman' within the definition of Section 2(s) and her designation was a misnomer. The petitioner claimed that the respondent's responsibility included distribution of client enquiries and letters amongst the various professional staff. She used to fix schedule and allocate Director's time to candidates, who were to be interviewed by the Director. She had a discretion to change the time and venue of interviews. She was responsible for checking professional qualifications as well as testimonials of the candidates. She used to ensure medical examination and completion of other formalities of the candidates. She used to interact with Head Office of the management located in Bombay and in addition use used to appoint part-time employee such as typists after conducting typing test. She was also responsible for ensuring preparation and submission of reports within time.

4. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence which had come on record came to the conclusion that the respondent's main work was clerical in nature and even if she was doing some supervisory work that was only incidental, she was a 'workman'. This finding of the Tribunal has been assailed by the management. The other issue raised by the management is that the petitioner was not an industry being a firm of Chartered Accountants and giving consultancy. The petitioner had also taken the stand that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from the job and her services were not terminated. One of the stands of the petitioner is that the services of the respondent were terminated on account of her irresponsible behaviour and she was not even liable to be given three months notice or pay in lieu thereof. However, upon insistence by the respondent and in order to avoid any unnecessary litigation the petitioner had acceded to the request of the respondent and paid a sum of Rs.13,205.55/- to her in addition to three months salary paid in lieu of the notice period. Thus, the act of the petitioner in terminating the services was with the consent of the respondent. The respondent got the cheque of Rs.26,336.55/- encashed without any protest. The respondent raised the Industrial Dispute despite after settling her claims with the petitioner. The petitioner also assailed the awarding of compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs to the respond