JUDGMENT : K.J. Joseph, J.—Petitioner in this original petition challenges the validity of Ext. P6 notification issued u/s 5 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and also the order passed by the Government evidenced by Ext.P7 refusing to make a reference of dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. According to the petitioner, both these orders are illegal and liable to be interfered with by this Court in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even though notice was served on the respondents, no counter affidavit has been filed controverting any of the allegations made by the petitioner in this O.P. 3. Regarding the validity of Ext. P6 notification, this Court in its decision in W.A. No. 705/94, it is held that the said notification is perfectly legal and valid, and therefore the petitioner has no legal right to question the validity of the said notification. 4. In respect of Ext.P7 order passed by the Central Government, the Government did not find any ground for making a reference of dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, since according lo the 4th respondent, the petitioner appears to be an officer of the 3rd respondent bank. It is a definite case of the Petitioner that eventhough he was designated as an officer of the third respondent Bank, he was not discharging any supervisory or managerial function, which would justify him to take out of the scope of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the basis of the decision reported in Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (1989) 3 SCC 271 , there is absolutely no justification for the 4th respondent to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is an officer and therefore there is no dispute between the employer and the workman: As stated earlier, petitioner's definite case is that he was not discharging the managerial or supervisory function in the service of the 3rd respondent bank. When there is a dispute regarding the nature of the work of an employee for arriving at a conclusion that whether he is a workman or not, there is no justification for the Government in refusing a reference to competent Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. That matter itself is in dispute and hence the matter has to be referred for adjudication. 5. When there is a dispute regarding the nature of the work of an employee for arriving at a conclusion that whether he is a workman or not, there is no justification for the Government in refusing a reference to competent Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. That matter itself is in dispute and hence the matter has to be referred for adjudication. 5. After hearing the petitioner, I am satisfied that Ext. P7 order is illegal and liable to be set aside. I set aside Ext. P7 order and direct the 4th respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for a reference to the competent Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, as the case may be. A final decision by the 4th respondent in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. O.P. is allowed. But, there will be no order as to cost.