2. The petitioner, Good Year India Ltd., is a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its Head Office at 225-G Acharya Jagdish Bose Road, Calcutta with branches at many places in India including the one at Swastika House, Station Road, Jaipur. Shri A.A. Dhingra, respondent No. 4 was previously sales representative of the Company at Jullunder. In January, 1954, he was posted at Jaipur in the same capacity. On April 1, 1964 he was made sales assistant and on 1st January, 1966 he was made area supervisor. As an area supervisor, Shri Dhingra was incharge of the whole of the State of Rajasthan and a few towns of Madhya Pradesh. On 16 12-66, when his services were terminated by the Company, he was drawing a salary of Rs. 763.36 (Rs. 706/- basic salary plus Rs. 57.36 paisa dearness allowance) besides a sizable amount as sales bonus. He was directly responsible to the District Manager of the Company stationed at Delhi. For business purposes, Delhi district of the Company comprised the States of Punjab, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Kashmir, Hariyana, part of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Annexure A is a copy of the letter dated 16-12-66, by which the employees services were terminated.

3. According to the petitioner, the duties of the employee were of a supervisory nature. His duties did not involve any manual, technical or clerical work. Further, the employees salary was at all material times more than Rs. 500/- per month. He was, therefore, not a workman within the definition of sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act).

4. After the termination of the employees services, the District Manager of the petitioner received a communication from the Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Jaipur, dated 3rd January, 1967 (Annexure C) along with a copy of the representation addressed by Shri Dhingra to the Conciliation Officer (Annexure B) asking the District Manager to appear before him on 17-1-67 at 11 A.M. In the conciliation proceedings, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that Shri Dhingra was not a workman within the meaning of sec. 2(s) of the Act and that, therefore, the conciliation proceedings were without jurisdiction. The petitioner elucidated its stand that Shri Dhingra was not a workman within the meaning of the Act by its representation dated 28th February, 1967 (Ex. D) filed before the Conciliation Officer. Shri Dhingra reiterated that he was a workman. The conciliation proceedings did not bear any fruit. The Conciliation Officer made a report to the Government of Rajasthan under sec. 12(4) of the Act on the 3rd of March, 1967 intimating failure of conciliation between the petitioner and Shri Dhingra. (Annexure E)

5. The petitioner submitted representation to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Labour on 10th March, 1967 along with a memorandum pointing out that Shri Dhingra was not a workman, that inspite of the petitioners insistence, the Conciliation Officer did not decide whether Shri Dhingra was a workman within the meaning of sec. 2(s) of the Act and that, therefore, the conciliation proceedings were without jurisdiction (Annexure F). On 18-4-67, the Government of Rajasthan in the Labour and Employment Department informed the petitioner and Shri Dhingra that it did not consider it a fit matter for reference to adjudication. The Governments letter reads as below: —

"I am directed to say that on consideration of the failure of conciliation report it is felt that Shri Dhingras main job was that of supervisory nature. Clerical work was only incidental. Looking to salary and other aspects of the cas