IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19072 of 2008(U) -------------------------- CP.16/2004 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ M.GEORGE,SANTHI BHAVAN, KAKRUKONE P.O, ALAYAMON VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CARAVAN GOODS CARRIERS (PVT) LTD, HPO NO.6984, 12 A, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS KALASIPALAYAM, NOW EXTENSION BANGALORE-560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM. BY GP. SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 19072 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order in respect of C.P.No.17/2004 passed by the Labour court, Ernakulam by which another C.P. was also disposed of. The Labour Court dismissed the C.P. on the ground that the petitioner is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, who alone can maintain a C.P. under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. I am of opinion that the Labour Court should have dismissed the C.P. even without deciding the question as to whether the petitioner was a workman since the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to decide that issue. In proceedings under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court cannot decide the question as to whether the petitioner is a workman or not, when the objection raised by the management, is bona fide. Here, the petitioner's designation is Senior Manager. The designation itself would prima facie suggest that W.P.(C).No. 19072 OF 2008 2 the petitioner is at least a person employed in supervisory capacity. Therefore there is a bona fide dispute as to whether the petitioner is a workman which can be decided only in a dispute raised under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, leaving the petitioner to raise an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, this writ petition is dismissed. I make it clear that the finding in Ext.P1 to the effect that the petitioner is not a workman would not stand in the way of the petitioner raising an industrial dispute in respect of the subject matter, as the decision on the question in Ext.P1 is without jurisdiction. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-