The judgment established the Court's authority to review evidence and assess the justifiability of dismissal, even after finding the domestic enquiry to be valid. It also clarified the definition of a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act and affirmed the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate industrial disputes involving such individuals.

1. s the dispute between a Co-operative Society and its Secretary an industrial dispute? Is the Secretary a 'workman' of the Society? and is it competent for a Labour Court in a reference under S.12 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the I.D. Act') to review the evidence and come to a finding different from that arrived at in the domestic enquiry after holding that the enquiry was fairly and properly conducted? These are the questions which arise for consideration in this Original Petition.

2. The petitioner is the employer society consisting of the employees of the Travancore-Cochin Chemicals Ltd. The 2nd respondent was its Secretary. The statutory audit of the accounts of the Society for the year 1978-79 seems to have revealed some irregularities. These were revealed by the summary of defects noted by the Auditor. The second respondent was on sick leave in 1979. When he rejoined duty, he was required to discharge the duties of a Clerk and was not allowed to function as Secretary. That provoked a series of correspondences. In a letter dated 1-8-1981 containing allocation of work with effect from 1-7-1980, the 2nd respondent was given the work of cash credit accounts, personal ledger, schedule, etc. The Senior Clerk was shown as the Acting Secretary. The 2nd respondent made an endorsement on the reverse of that letter that he being the Secretary of the Society at the time when he entered on leave, should be permitted to rejoin duty in that post. He also stated that to his knowledge, there were no disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, and therefore, requested that he should be permitted to function as the Secretary of the Society. In reply to the endorsement, the petitioner informed the 2nd respondent that he had been relieved of the duties of the Secretary as per resolution No.3 of the Board of Directors dated 29-9-1980 and other work was allotted to him. He was also told that there was a criminal case pending against him, and therefore, he would not be permitted to function as the Secretary of the Society. He was advised to work in accordance with the allocation order referred to above. A series of correspondence followed. In his letter dated 14-10-1981, the 2nd respondent informed the President of the Society that the Criminal Case filed against him was referred and there was no case pending against him. He requested for review of the allocation order and his restoration as Secretary of the Society. In letter dated 29th October, 1981, the President of the Petitioner Society informed the 2nd respondent that he would not be paid wages with effect from 30-10-1981, since he was not complying with the directions in the allocation order. The 2nd respondent then filed Arbitration case No. 584/81. The Registrar passed an interim order dated 15-3-1982 staying the proceedings instituted by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent. Petitioner filed O.P.4580/82 challenging that interim order. This Court passed a conditional order of stay on 1-7-1982 in C.M.P. 12997/82. In the meantime, the petitioner Society filed Arbitration Case No. 18/82 against the 2nd respondent under S.69 of the Act. That case was dismissed by order dated 10th January, 1985 holding that the monetary claim made by the petitioner Society against the 2nd respondent was premature, without sufficient cause, and against the principles of natural justice. In the meantime, by letter dated 12-12-1981. the petitioner Society had required the 2nd respondent to remit an amount of Rs. 894.55 within 15 days of receipt thereof. He was also required to furnish necessary explanation, failing which further steps were threatened against him. The 2nd respondent submitted his explanation on 13-1-1982. In his resolution No.173 dated 14-1-1982, the petitioner Society held that the explanations offered by the 2nd respondent were unsatisfactory. In letter dated 18th January, 1982, he was suspended from service, pending enquiry into the allegations levelled ag