K.A. Puj, J.

1. The Petitioner, who is now a practicing advocate, appearing as party-in-person has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india challenging the award passed by the Lab our Court, Vadodara in Reference. (L.C.V.) No. 300 of 1984 on 29.06.1995 dismissing the said reference on the ground that the Petitioner does not fall within the definition of "workman" as contemplated u/s 2(s) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the I.D. Act.).

2. This Court has issued notice on 03.09.1996. The Rule was issued on 10.03.1997. During the pendency of the petition, talks for settlements were going on. However, the same did not bring any fruitful result and hence, the petition is heard on merits.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that in January, 1983, the Petitioner was employed as a Design and Development Engineer by the Respondent - Company on monthly salary of Rs. 2,200 which was raised to Rs.2,275. The Petitioner was confirmed in July, 1983, after initial probation of six months on advice of Senior Design Engineer Mr. Navinbhai Shah, to whom the Petitioner was reporting. The said Mr. Navinbhai Shah was the Head of Design Department as the post of Head of Design Department was vacant. One Mr. Shankarbhai Prajapati, another Senior Design Engineer used to be in-charge of the Design Department, when Mr. Shah was absent.

4. On 25.12.1983, the Petitioner was on his pre-sanctioned leave. Resuming on next day he found, from the remark against his name in muster roll at the gate, that he was dismissed from service of the Company. The reasons for the Petitioner's dismissal were not known to him.

5. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the Petitioner moved the Lab our Court for reinstatement with back wages. The Respondent - Company contested the said reference on the sole contention that the Petitioner was employed in Supervisory capacity and was drawing salary of more than Rs. 1,600 per month and was, therefore, excluded from the definition of 'Workman' as provided in proviso (iv) of Sub-section (s) of Section 2 of the I.D. Act and hence, the reference was not tenable.

6. Mr. Mayank Desai learned advocate submitted that the impugned award passed by the Lab our Court is absolutely bad, illegal, arbitrary, preposterous, perverse, capricious and totally inconsistent with the evidence on record, unreasonable and against the settled principles of law. He has further submitted that the career of the qualified Mechanical Engineer has been stigmatized due to unfair dismissal by the employer and now it is completely blocked and ruined by the impugned award. He has further submitted that the reference was made by the Government u/s 10(1) of the I.D. Act for reinstatement with back wages. In view of the clear terms of reference there was no scope for framing the issues. The learned Presiding Officer has, however, narrowed down the scope of the reference by framing the issues--

(I) Whether the Petitioner is a workman or not? And

(II) Whether the dismissal was fair or not?

He has further submitted that the learned Presiding Officer has restricted the reference by adjudicating only on the first issue and the way in which the reference was treated has caused grave injustice to the Petitioner as it has left important issues unresolved. He has further submitted that the findings on the sole issue of whether the Petitioner is work man or not", is perverse, inconsistent with the evidence on record and capricious. No person property instructed in law and acting judicially could have reached the impugned finding. He has further submitted that there is no controversy that the Petitioner was not employed in Managerial or Administrative capacity. The Respondent - Company itself has restricted its case by taking shelter under proviso (iv) of Sub-section (s) of Section 2 of the I.D. Act by stating that the Petitioner was employed as supervisory capacity. He has further submitted that the reasons given by the learned P