JUDGMENT

T.S. Misra, J. - Rajendra Singh, the petitioner, was an employee of Scooters India, Ltd. He was appointed as assistant supervisor on a consolidated salary of Rs. 600 per month which was inclusive of all allowances. The terms and conditions, under which he was appointed were stated in the letter of appointment, dated 7 March 1975, a copy of which is annexure C 1 to the counter-affidavit. He was placed on probation for a period of six months with effect from the date of joining his duties. That letter also enumerated the duties of his post. Paragraph 15 of that letter is relevant for our enquiry which is extracted hereinbelow.

"The duties of your post shall also include the following:

(a) Fully responsible for proper upkeep and cleanliness of machinery, tools, equipments and working place under your charge.

(b) Setting of job on different machines under your charge.

(c) Working with your own hands on the machine/ machines attached to you.

(d) Ensuring regulgar flow/availability of components and tools, etc., for completing the production norms laid down by the management for your machine/machines under your charge and maintain the laid down quality standards.

(e) Any other job assigned to you by your superiors. "

The services of the petitioner were, however, terminated after some time on 4 November 1978. The petitioner raised a dispute and ultimately the State Government in the Labour Department by Order No. 1076, dated 20 March, 1979, referred the dispute for adjudication. The matter of dispute referred was in these terms :

"Kya sewayojakondwara apne shramik Rajendra Singh putra Swa. Sri Sardar Balwant Singh ko dinaak 4 November 1978, se karya se phathak Vanchit kiya jana uchit tatha/athra vaidhanik hai yadi nahin to sanhandhit shramik kya labh/chha tipoorti paney ka adhikari hai tatha anya kis vivhan sahit?"

Before the Labour Court objections were filed on behalf of the Scooters India, Ltd., the employers. A rejoinder statement was also filed by the present petitioner. Documentary and oral evidence was also adduced in support of the respective contentions. It was urged before the Labour Court that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of that term given in the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. Hence the reference was bad in law and invalid. This contention was raised primarily on the basis that Rajendra Singh was drawing a salary of more than Rs. 500 and was said to have been performing the duties essentially of supervisory nature. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue on the point in the following terms;

" Whether Rajendra Singh is not a workman within the meaning of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act? If so, its effect?"

The Labour Court answered this issue against the petitioner holding that the petitioner was working in supervisory capacity and got wages of more than Rs. 500 per month, hence he was not a workman within the meaning of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. In view of this finding the Labour Court further held that the dispute was not an industrial dispute, hence the reference was bad in law and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. It also observed that it was not possible for the Court to enter into the merits of the dispute and the case must be consigned to records as infructuous, the matter of dispute being outside the purview of the Court. Feeling aggrieved, Rajendra Singh has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of the said order of the Labour Court and for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Labour Court to rehear the matter of dispute and decide it in accordance with law and to treat the petitioner as being in employment with full wages.

2. The petition has been opposed by the employer Scooters India. Ltd. and a counter- affidavit has been filed on its behalf by Sri C. D. Sugdan, Assistant Personnel Officer in Scooters India, Ltd. A rejoinder affidavit has also been