Shukla, J. -- 1. This order shall dispose of L.P.A. No. 27/94 and the cross-objection filed by the respondent No. 1.

2. The L.P.A. is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.7.94 of learned Single Judge, passed in M.P. No. 1422/93, whereby while partly accepting the petition filed by the respondent No.1 remanded the case back to respondent No.2 i.e., State Government for decision on the point of 'workman' under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before refering the matter for adjudication to the lower Court. .

3. The brief history of the case is that respondent No.1 filed a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution seeking quashment of order of reference Ann. 'L' of petition whereby the dispute was referred to the Labour Court i.e., respondent No.4 here. The reference made in Hindi reads as under :-

D;k Jh lurdqekj caMh dk i`Fkdhdj.k oS/k ,oa mfpr gS\ ;fn ugha rks os fdl lgk;rk ds ik= gSa ,oa bl laca/k esa fu;ksDrk dks D;k funsZ"k fn;k tkuk pkfg,\

English translation of the reference is -- Whether termination of Sanat Kumar Bandi (appellant here) is legal and valid? If not, what relief he is entitled for and what direction can be given in the matter to the Employer?

4. The respondent No. 1 filed a petition with the assertions that it is a company registered under the Companies Act carrying on the business of manufacture and sales of pharmaceutical and consumer products. Respondent No.4 (appellant here) was employed by the petitioner as Professional Service Representative on 5.12.86 (Annexure' A'). Thereafter, he was promoted as Area Field Manager in Grade- V in the Management Grade w.e.f. 1.1.71 by order dated 5.1.71. he was confirmed on this post w.e.f 1.7.71 by order dated 17.8.71 (Annexure B & BII) to the petition. Lateron the aforesaid post was designated as Area Sales Manager. The services of respondent (appellant here) was dispensed with vide order dated 19.9.90 (Annexure 'C'). The appellant here raised Industrial Dispute on the assumption that he was a workman. The respondent No.3 here Conciliation Officer take up the matter for conciliation.

The Comapny resisted the claim and asserted that Sanat Kumar was not a workman. It was contended by the Comapny that Sanat Kumar (respondent No. 4), appellant here was conducted with Managerial and Administrative duties with salary exceeding Rs. 1,600/-. The Company produced documents showing the duties assigned to Shri Sanat Kumar and tried to demonstrate that Shri Sanat Kumar was working in Supervisory capacity.

The Labour Commissioner (respondent NO.3 here) passed an order (Annexure 'L') on 15.12.92 and referred the dispute as above. The proceedings were started before the Labour Court vide case No. 45/92. The same was challenged by the Company by way of writ petition. Learned Single Judge remanded back the file to respondent No.2 State for reconsideration and to decide as to whether respondent No.4 (appellant here) is a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act and thereafter to pass appropriate order in accordance with Law. Hence, this appeal by respondent No.

4 Shri Sanat Kumar Bandi.

5. The contention or the learned counsel for the appellant is that this is an incidental matter which ought to have been decided by the Labour Court and, therefore, learned Singel Judge was not justified in remanding back the case to the State Government for consideration. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that point of jurisdiction could be raised by the Company before the Labour Court, who could decide the made I' and, therefore, if necessary, the same could be agitated before Superior Court in hirarchy of Labour Court and as alternative remedy is available the learned Single Judge was not justified in exercising jurisdiction under section 226/227 of the Constitution.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 Company has, on the other hand, submitted that since Labour Court lacks initial jurisdiction the very