The main legal point established is the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' under S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the application of the exceptions under S.2(s)(iii) and S.2(s)(iv) based on the nature of the duties and powers of the employee.

1. A co-operative society registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 is the petitioner in this Original Petition and it is represented by the President. The 1st respondent, while working as the Secretary of the petitioner co-operative bank, was proceeded against for certain irregularities noticed in the performance of his duties as Secretary. A sub-committee of the Board of Directors served on the petitioner a memorandum of charges and after considering his explanation found him guilty of the charges framed against him and issued a notice to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The charges levelled against the 1st respondent were that he had been lending money privately to one C.P.C. Hydrue while refusing to give him loan from the bank, that he had given excess amounts in granting gold loans, that he had divulged the bank secrets to one C. Kunjumuhammed, that he had misappropriated the movables belonging to the bank and used them at his own residence and that he had not maintained the service register as required by the rules. The explanation submitted by the 1st respondent was found not satisfactory and he was dismissed from service. The 1st respondent filed an appeal before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Trivandrum, against the order of dismissal; but the Registrar directed him to file an appeal before the Board of Directors. He did so, and while the appeal was pending before the Board, the 3rd respondent, which is the workers' union, the Kerala State Co-operative Employees' Association, obtained a reference to the Labour Court, Quilon on the question of the 1st respondent's dismissal. The Labour Court after an enquiry held that the order of dismissal passed against the 1st respondent was illegal since no domestic enquiry in keeping with the principles of natural justice had been held against the 1st respondent before his dismissal. The Labour Court, which is the 2nd respondent in this original petition, as a result, ordered that the 1st respondent should be reinstated in service with full back wages. The petitioner-co-operative Bank now prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of a certiorari, mandamus or other appropriate writ quashing Ext. P1 award passed by the 2nd respondent Labour Court.

2. The main contention raised by the petitioner's counsel is that the finding of the Labour Court that the 1st respondent is a workman within the meaning of S.2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is wrong in law, that the provisions of the by-laws of the bank conclusively show that the 1st respondent was in charge of the administration of the bank and was, therefore, not a 'workman' within the meaning of S.2(s) of the

Act. According to the petitioner's learned counsel, the reference to the Labour Court was therefore incompetent ;and there was no industrial dispute within the meaning of S.2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On this ground it was argued that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to pass the award Ext. P-1 and it was therefore void and inoperative being without jurisdiction.

3. The only question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the 1st respondent is a 'workman' within the meaning of S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It was practically conceded that if the 1st respondent was ultimately held to be a workman, then the order passed by the 2nd respondent was valid and binding on the petitioner and his award has to be effective. Under S.2(s) of the Act a workman is defined as 'any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical 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, th