1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2447/2001 Maj.Gurudeep Singh (Retd.) Petitioner Vs. Union Bank of India Respondents Mr.R.V.Govilkar,with Mr.Sarang Aradhye Adv.for the petitioner Mr.S.B.Shetye a/w Mr.Milind Deshmukh,Adv.for Res.2, & 3 CORAM : J.N.PATEL & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATED : 22nd APRIL,2009 P.C. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) . This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 7/6/2000 passed by respondent no.2 holding that he is not a workman u/s 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and is governed by the Union Bank of India Officers' Service Regulation ,1979.The petitioner was appointed with respondent no.4 as a Security Officer in the year 1990. He was transferred from Pune to Mumbai in the year 1994 and thereafter he remained absent for a long period. So enquiry was initiated against him by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner's services were terminated on 23/11/1995. So he approached the Appellate Authority. His appeal was dismissed on 19/3/1996. His 2 review application was rejected. Thereafter he made reference to respondent no.3 on 17/3/1997. On 23/3/2000 respondent no.3 gave ''failure'' report and referred the matter to respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 had not found prima facie the issue fit for adjudication. Hence this petition. 2] The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the office of Asstt.Labour Commissioner( C ),Mumbai has observed that the management remained absent in the conciliation proceedings inspite of the service of notice to them and so there was no option left for the authority to observe that no settlement was possible and has submitted a ''failure'' report . This matter was referred to respondent no.2 by the Asstt.Labour Commissioner ( C ),Mumbai and respondent no.2 was supposed to forward it by giving necessary details to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (C.G.I.T.). He has further submitted that respondent no.2 has given a wrong finding holding that the dispute is unfit for adjudication. 3] The question whether the petitioner is a workman under Industrial Disputes Act requires detailed investigation of facts to be done by Industrial Tribunal only and therefore has to be referred to an Industrial Tribunal for adjudication under the said Act. Therefore,respondent no.2 has erred in giving finding that the Security Officer of the bank i.e. the petitioner is not a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and he is an officer governed by Union Bank of India Officers' Service Regulation ,1979. 3 Respondent no.2 should not have entered this arena of deciding whether the employee is a workman or not which is in fact beyond his jurisdiction. He lost sight that his function is limited to forward the said reference and not to give any judgment on the maintainability. Respondent no.2 has transgressed his limits and power by deciding the petitioner is a workman or not for which the Central Government Industrial Tribunal is the competent authority. Hence the impugned order of respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside. Respondent no.2 is further directed to make a reference to the C.G.I.T.for adjudication within six weeks of the communication of this judgment and order. The petitioner to communicate this order to respondent no.2. The rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. (J. N. PATEL , J ) (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J)