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