A person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(z) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 if he is employed to do skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical, or clerical work for hire or reward, and does not fall within any of the exceptions specified in the section.

( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition filed by management-petitioner praying that a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the interim award dated November 28, 1978 passed by the Labour Court, Bareilly (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) holding that the respondent is a workman within the definition of Section 2 (z) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be called as act ). It is also prayed that a writ of mandamus directing the law be also issued.

( 2 ) THE matter was stayed in the High Court in 1979. It appears that the petitioner, who was allegedly working as cane-inspector with the petitioner company, his services were terminated on February 16, 1975. He took up the matter to the Government and the Government considering it as an industrial dispute referred the matter to the Labour Court for decision. The Labour Court framed the following two preliminary issues :- -. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .

( 3 ) THE Labour Court after recording detailed findings in the interim award held that the respondent is a workman and there is industrial dispute and did not go into the merits of termination order. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petition has been filed.

( 4 ) SRI J. N. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Labour Court has committed grave error apparent on the face of record holding that the respondent is a workman and the order is based on surmises and conjecture. He has further submitted that the respondent was doing a supervisory duty and his pay was more than Rs. 500/- and as such he is not a workman and the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to return the finding.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the finding of the Labour court is correct. She further submitted that the duty of sugar cane inspector is only to check and examine the quality and quantity of the sugar cane which were brought by the farmers. He is also to check at the time of operation season whether the stationery was available at cane centres and the clerical staff does not feel any difficulty. He is also to get information whether the sugar canes were loaded timely or not.

( 6 ) WE are of the considered opinion after hearing the learned counsel for the parties that the industrial Tribunal should avoid piecemeal trial by way of framing preliminary issues. The labour Court perhaps did not understand the concept of the preliminary issue. It is settled law that on preliminary issue, no evidence is led. If any issue involves of leading the evidence, it remains no preliminary issue, in relation either to the jurisdiction of the Court or the suit being barred under the prevailing law. Here, the question of determination of workman was intermingled with termination of the workers services.

( 7 ) THUS the preliminary issue does not require any evidence. However, in this case when the government thought it fit that it is the industrial dispute and the respondent is a workman only then it referred the matter. Prima facie, the Government was satisfied about the ambit of reffering the case, It may be mentioned that the Labour Court is original Court of jurisdiction in labour matters and has vast powers in the matter of labour disputes and it is necessary to answer the reference after giving opportunity to the parties and then the award is passed. The sanctity of the award has been attached so much so that it is rarely interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless there are some jurisdictional errors. The finding of fact is never interfered and the High Court cannot examine the award as a Court of appeal or reviewing authority. The finding of fact is not interfered unless is based on no evidence. The approach of the Labour Court in trying the two preliminary issues is illegal and is not warranted by law. We would like to quote the language of Order 14 Rule I, C. P. C. regarding framing of issues as under

:"1. Framing of iss