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 reply filed by respondent No. 1 dated 22.11.2015. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ved Prakash Gupta v. M/s. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., 1984 (48) FLR 417 (SC), to contend that what are the parameters for the concerned employee to be treated as a 'workman' within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that this petition be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds as under.

5.1. Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 reads as under.

"Workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature]."

5.2. The assertion of the respondent No. 1 himself, before the Assistant Labour Commissioner was to the effect that at the time of his termination, he was working as Manager (HR-Legal) and further that his basic pay was Rs.52,000/- per month (vide Annexure-C to this petition).

5.3. Additionally, it is also on record that along with relieving order, respondent No. 1 was paid Rs.1,17,970/- as one month notice pay. (This was over and above other payments).

5.4. Further, it is the case of respondent No. 1 himself, as contained in the material annexed with the affidavit in reply, that he was not only working in the supervisory capacity and was drawing wages exceeding Rs.10,000/- per month but he was employed mainly in the managerial and administrative capacity. The following are the assertions of respondent No. 1.

"Page No. 58 & 59

.........I had suspended 2 union presidents with your permission and 01 office staff Mr. Gaurav with your permission and clean the organisation.

Also so many disciplined issued I had s