Decision reviewable by the writ Court.

1. The petitioner in the writ petition claiming himself to be a workman within the meaning of S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), raised a dispute over his non-employment by the first respondent. The dispute was referred to the second respondent and the matter was taken up for adjudication by the second respondent in I.D. No. 55 of 1977. Apart from justifying the non-employment of the petitioner on other grounds, the first respondent put forth a contention that the petitioner would not come within the meaning of "workman" under S. 2(s) of the Act, because he was employed at the relevant point of time in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs. 500 per mensem and thus the petitioner would be excluded from the definition of "workman".

2. The second respondent went into the question as to whether the petitioner would come within the meaning of "workmen" under S. 2(s) of the Act and on an assessment of the materials placed before him, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was employed in a supervisory capacity and was drawing wages exceeding Rs. 500 per mensem and accordingly he would fall within the exemption set out under S. 2(s)(iv) of the Act. The second respondent further found that the termination of the services of the petitioner by the first respondent is tenable, since the first respondent acted bona fide taking into consideration relevant factors which justified such termination. In that view the second respondent passed an award dismissing the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the awards of the second respondent in the present writ petition.

3. The primary question was argued before me by Mr. P. R. Govindaswami Iyer, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the finding of the second respondent that the petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of S. 2(s) of the Act the he will be hit by the exemption under S. 2(s)(iv) of the Act is in ignorance of the factual materials placed in this case. It is needless to point out that the decision relating to the status of the workman which touches the jurisdiction of the Labour Court can be reviewed by this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India if the error is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. This obliges me to consider the question as to whether the second respondent committed any error of law when he adjudicated that the petitioner comes with in the exemption under S. 2(s)(iv) of the Act. The petitioner was entertained by the first respondent at its Trivandrum branch by order, dated 13th November, 1963, marked in this case as Ext. M-1. Exhibit M-2 is the order of confirmation passed by the first respondent, with regard to the employment of the petitioner on 21st August, 1954. The petitioner was working in different branches of the first respondent and at the relevant point of time he was working at Ooty Branch of the first respondent. By Ext. W-16, dated 1st July, 1976, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the first respondent with effect from the close of work on 5th July, 1976. The last drawn wages of the petitioner admittedly exceeded Rs. 500 per mensem. Exhibits M-1 and M-2 do not throw much light on the nature of the duties allocated to the petitioner. The employment of the petitioner was in the category of a foreman. Exhibit M-2 among other things, states as follows :

"You are expected to manage the workshop side of our business thoroughly and efficiently to the satisfaction of the management and our valuable customers without any complaints. You are to carry out all instructions and directions given to you by the management from time to time and all jobs are to be taken up only after getting the permission. You are responsible and plant and tools in the workshop and with workmen."

Exhibit M-9 is dated 20th March, 1975, and it contains the list of duties assigned to the petitioner for his general guidance. Ext. M-9 reads as foll