JUDGMENT

Manoj Bajaj, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari to challenge the award dated 14.10.2022 passed by Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurugram, whereby his claim raised under Section 2 -A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, challenging the termination of services was decided against him.

2. Briefly the facts leading to the writ petition are that petitioner joined the respondent No.2-Company, namely, M/s Chetak Logistics Limited as Superintendent Grade-II, pursuant to the letter of appointment dated 01.04.2004 (Ex.PW1/1) and he continued to discharge his duties sincerely till 01.06.2020, when he was removed from the service. The petitioner visited the office of respondent No.2-Company on various occasions with a request to allow him to join the services, but his request was not considered favourably, therefore, he served a demand notice dated 08.06.2020 (Annexure P-2) and subsequent to it vide letter dated 11.06.2020 (Ex. PW-1/4), his services were terminated illegally on the ground of his absence for the last two months. As per averments, the conciliation proceedings before the Labour Commissioner did not materialize and the matter reached before the Labour Court through reference bearing No. PR/211/21. The notice was issued to respondent No.2- Management, but despite service none appeared on its behalf, therefore, respondent No.2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 30.09.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner adduced his evidence and considering the same, the Labour Court, Gurugram dismissed his claim through impugned order dated 14.10.2022. Hence this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the claim by workman was not contested by the management despite effective service and the petitioner had adduced sufficient documentary evidence to prove his illegal removal from service in violation of the mandatory provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but ignoring the said evidence, the Labour Court decided the reference against him. He submits that the petitioner worked for a long period with the respondent No.2-Company w.e.f April, 2004 till June, 2020 and his nature of work as well as length of service is proved. According to him, the impugned award is against the law and evidence on the record, therefore, the interference is warranted by this Court by exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 Constitution of India.

4. During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel that subsequent to his appointment on the post of Superintendent Grade-II in the year 2004, the petitioner was promoted and when his services were terminated, he was holding the post of Operation Manager with a monthly salary of Rs.40,500/-. To a pointed query by the Court relating to the status of the petitioner as workman in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, learned counsel submitted that the definition contained in Section 2 (s) Industrial Disputes Act is wide enough and would include the petitioner in the said definition. He submitted that merely designation of petitioner alone would not be sufficient to exclude him from definition of workman, as the nature of duties and work performed by the petitioner would be relevant for ascertaining the status as a workman. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'S.K. Maini v. M/s. Carona Sahu Company Limited and others' 1994(3) SCT 312. He submits that as Labour Court has committed an error of law in holding that the petitioner is not a workman and refused to adjudicate the industrial dispute on merits. He pra