( 1 ) HEARD the Learned Advocate Mr. Chirag M. Pawar on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Chudgar appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 and 4 and Learned AGP Mr. Kodekar appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2.

( 2 ) IN the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent no. 2 dated 4th December, 1995 while exercising the power under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the I. D. Act, 1947. The respondent No. 2 has decided not to refer the dispute for adjudication on the ground that members of the Petitioner Association are not workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of I. D. Act, 1947. The affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 and 4 and rejoinder is filed on behalf of petitioner. The petitioner has produced voluminous records in respect to duties and functions of the members of Petitioner Association for justification that they are the workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I. D. Act, 1947. The affidavit in reply has been filed by respondent no. 2 wherein he supported his order and made it clear that he has examined the dispute prima-facie after considering the salary, the duties, work and power as well as supervisory capacity of the members of Petitioner Association. Learned Advocate Mr. Pawar appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Association has submitted that respondent no. 2 has committed jurisdictional error in passing the order dated 4th December, 1995. He also submitted that respondent no. 2 has no jurisdiction to decide the merits of the dispute which has been raised by the petitioner. He also submitted that both the parties has produced the relevant record in respect to duties, work, power and supervisory capacity and after examining the said record the respondent no. 2 has come to the conclusion that members of the Petitioner Association are not workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of I. D. Act 1947. Therefore, he submitted that it is clear decision like quasi-judicial authority and, therefore, such exercise of power is not permissible under the law and, therefore, order is bad. He also submitted that respondent no. 2 have appeared to consider the only one fact that whether naturally dispute has existed between the parties or not. If naturally dispute has existed then it is enough for the respondent no. 2 for referring the dispute for adjudication. The order which has been passed by respondent no. 2 is an administrative order and not quasi-judicial order. Therefore, he has not to examine the merits or lis between the parties. He also submitted that looking to the language used in the order it is clear case of 100% a final conclusion on the issue and it is not merely a prima-facie conclusion. Therefore, Mr. Pawar relied upon two decisions of Apex Court (1) in case of Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh V. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court page 1565 and (2) decision in case of Abad Dairy Dudh Vitran Kendra Sanchalak Mandal Vs. Abad Dairy and Ors. reported in 1999 Supreme Court Cases (Lands) page 1079.

( 3 ) LEARNED AGP Mr. Kodekar appearing for respondent no. 2 has submitted that respondent no. 2 has rightly passed an order and he has not committed any error. He also submitted that respondent no. 2 has to see the prima-facie merits of the dispute which has been raised by the Petitioner Association. That has been done by the respondent no. 2 rightly and, therefore, the decision which has been taken is also legal and valid and within his jurisdiction. For that respondent no. 2 has not committed any error.

( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Chudgar vehemently opposed the petition and submissions made by petitioner. He submitted that a detailed reply has been filed by respondent no. 3 and 4 wherein at page 171 paragraph 8/2 the powers and functions of the members of the Petitioner Association are narrated. He submitted that they have power to sanction the leave, they have to assess the performance of workers and to submit th