Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The respondent (employee) is argued to be non-workman under Section 2(s); judgment holds respondent does not fall within workman definition, affecting industrial dispute viability (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Labour Court's award for reinstatement and back wages is quashed and set aside; reference deemed without jurisdiction for the workman-status dispute (!) . - The Court references statutory definitions and prior evidence (appointment/confirmation letters showing supervisory role and salary) to determine workman status under Section 2(s) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Proceedings noted as cross-petitions with joint hearing; final outcome: rule absolute in favor of employer; back wages/17B considerations addressed with no separate order (!) (!) (!) . - Interim stay was granted earlier under Section 17B; later not to recover 17B allowances due to prolonged litigation (!) (!) . - References to constitutional protections (Arts. 12, 14, 16) and industrial dispute prerequisites under the Industrial Disputes Act (!) (!) . - Labour Court evidence on nature of duties and supervisory role critical in determining workman status; its disregard of relevant evidence found perversity (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The impugned order of reference dated 2.1.2003 and subsequent award are held without jurisdiction for the disputed workman status (!) . - Appointment/confirmation letters establish designation and pay grade contradicting the workman status at relevant salary threshold (above 1600) (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment emphasizes that a statutory remedy under Article 226 is not available for enforcing a personal contract, except under recognized exceptions such as Industrial Law reinstatement cases (!) (!) .

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?