JUDGMENT :

1. By filing the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the award dated 09.10.2009 passed by the learned Labour Court, Vadodara in Recovery Application No.384 of 2002, whereby, the application of the workman came to be partly allowed and the petitioners were directed to pay Rs.87,000/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Thousand Only) to the respondent – workman towards the dues of the salary.

2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to as “petitioner” and “respondent”.

3. It is contended that the employer is the Cooperative Society and is established by the educated Christian and a retired teacher. It is further contended that the respondent was not employee of the society, but he was being paid honorarium for his services. It is also contended that the respondent has committed a fraud and misappropriation of huge amount of Rs.1,56,324/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Four Only) and, therefore, the Registrar of the Cooperative Society has lodged the complaint against the respondent. It is further contended by the society that the respondent himself has tendered his resignation and it was accepted and at that time, he had assured to make good any amount which is to be paid back to the society. It is also contended that the respondent was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter be referred to as the “I.D. Act.”) as he was a retired teacher who was a promoter of the society and was officer bearer of the society in honorary capacity and was drawing Rs.500/- as honorarium. It is further contended that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the fact that there was no master and servant relationship between the society and the workman. It is contended that no proof of payment of any sort of wages was placed on record and in absence of such documents, no order ought to have been passed by the Labour Court. It is contended that the Labour Court has committed serious error of facts and law in holding that the office bearer under the Cooperative Societies Act working on honorary basis be treated as a workman. It is contended that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the recovery application under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act can be filed only against a pre-existing right which could be examined in a proper reference. It is further contended that in the present case, there was no pre-existing right and as such, the respondent was not being a workman, the I.D. Act itself was not applicable. According to the society, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and it has exercised its power without any jurisdiction. It is contended that the award is bad-in-law and it deserves to be quashed and set aside and more so because such a fake recovery application had been created after inordinate and unexplained delay. On all these grounds, the society has prayed to pass appropriate writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the award passed in Recovery Application No.384/2002.

4. The original respondent – workman has filed the affidavit-in-reply wherein he has categorically stated that he was the promoter of the society and working on honorary service has disputed the question of facts and, has taken any stand that the version of the society is not tenable. He has stated that in Annual Report of Second Anniversary of the society 2000-2001 whereby the title headings of the cover page discloses the fact that the workman is included in the list of employees as secretary which was produced before the Labour Court in Recovery Application. He has further stated that there is no dispute that in the balance sheet, Loss and Profit, Credit and Debit Account, Rs.12,000/- has been shown towards the expenses of salary which is also the part of the said Annual Report of the society. According to him, the version of the honorarium as alleged by the