Paresh Upadhyay, J.

1. The petitioner employer has challenged the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Vadodara - the appropriate Authority under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 making the Reference dated 24.2.2015 to the Labour Court, Vadodara. The terms of the said Reference is, as to whether the respondent No. 1 should be reinstated in service with consequential benefits or not. The said Reference is registered as Reference T (L.C.) No. 29 of 2015. Rule.

2. Heard learned advocates.

3. Mr. Yogen Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner employer has submitted that in the proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner itself, it was categorically pointed out that the respondent No. 1 is not the 'workman' within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court through the material on record (reference to which is made hereinafter) to contend that the impugned reference is illegal. It is submitted that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 has contested this petition by referring to the affidavit in