A. K. Sikri, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER was appointed as Trainee Inspector with Anand Insurance Company Limited, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi w. e. f. 1st April, 1971. This Company later on got merged with New India Assurance Company Limited Respondent No. 2 on 1st January, 1973, Consequently, the Petitioner s services were taken over by Respondent No. 2-Company. While the Petitioner was working with Respondent Company, on 21st June, 1980 he was suspended on ground of detection of serious irregularities allegedly committed by him charge-sheet dated 3rd July, 1980 was thereafter served upon him. Petitioner replied denying said charges. Enquiry Officer was appointed at this stage supplementary charge-sheet dated 9th March, 1981 was also served upon Petitioner and the same enquiry officer was asked to conduct the enquiry in respect of these charges also. Enquiry was conducted as per which charges stood proved against the Petitioner. Petitioner was, consequently dismissed from service vide order dated 11th January, 1981. Petitioner challenged the said dismissal and filed appeal before the Appellate Authority which was rejected by Appellate Authority vide order dated 21st September, 1982. Petitioner raised industrial dispute challenging the dismissal order dated 21st September, 1982 which was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CGIT, for short) for adjudication with the following terms of reference:- "whether the action of the, management of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in dismissing the services of Sh. G. L. Pahwa, Inspector w. e. f. 21. 12. 1981 is fair, justified and legal? If not, what relief the worker concerned is entitled to?" ( 2 ) THE Industrial Tribunal gave its award dated 14th September,1998 in industrial dispute No-27/89, in which it held that the Petitioner was not a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) and reference was held to be not maintainable. The relevant portion of the Award dealing with this aspect reads as under:- "the most important point urged by both the parties before this Tribunal was as to whether the claimant was a workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the I. D. Act or not.