IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8964 of 2009 . Date of Decision : May 30, 2009. Sadr Anjuman Ahmadiyya, Qadian, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur through its authorised representative Jameel Ahmad Nasir. ...... Petitioner. Versus. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur, and another. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. In the present writ petition, various grounds have been taken by the petitioner with regard to entitlement of the workman for moving an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), copy whereof has been appended as Annexure-P-9 with the writ petition. The concerns, which have been raised, inter-alia by counsel for the petitioner are about the maintainability of the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act that the petitioner is not an industry and the respondent employee not being a workman as regard to the claim, which is being sought to be made by the workman without its determination or his entitlement for the same. It has further been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that as per judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme C.W.P. No. 8964 of 2009. Court, these issues need to be determined as preliminary issues and the Labour Court must accordingly proceed to decide the matter. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I do not deem it appropriate to go into these aspects as has been raised by the petitioner as these would be dependent on the pleadings and the evidence which is to be led before the Labour Court by the parties. It would be open to the petitioner to raise all these pleas, which have been taken in this petition, before the Labour Court including the prayer for deciding the issues with regard to maintainability of the application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act for the reason that the respondent not being a workman, and the petitioner being not an industry, as a preliminary issue. The Labour Court would accordingly consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE May 30, 2009. sjks. Whether referred to the Reporter - Yes / No. -2-