ORDER: This writ petition has been filed praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the Award of the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli made in I.D.No.378 of 1995 dated 26.2.1997 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and backwages and other consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts of the writ petition are that the petitioner herein was employed as Secretary in the first respondent Society and on a charge of misappropriation of a sum of Rs.14,000, an enquiry was held and the charges were held proved and ultimately he was dismissed from service. Thereafter, the petitioner raised I.D.No.212 of 1994 before the Labour Court, Madurai which was transferred to the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli and re-numbered as I.D.No.378 of 1995 and the same was dismissed on 26.2.1997, challenging which the present writ petition has been filed. 3. At the outset, it must be stated that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner are multifarious in nature and therefore the subject has to be approached on a careful consideration of the role played by the Labour Court regarding its decision made in I.D.No.378 of 1995 dated 26.2.1997 and thereafter to decide regarding the direction sought for against the first respondent to reinstate him with continuity of service and backwages and for other consequential benefits and whether that part of the prayer could be granted by this Court sitting under discretionary powers of judicial review within the limitations of Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 4. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the Labour Court, in its Award has held that the petitioner is not a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Industries Disputes Act, but, however it has gone into the facts of the case and held that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved; that when once it is held that the petitioner is not a ‘workman’ and he has no right to approach the Labour Court, the Labour Court ought not to have further gone into the facts and circumstances of the case and held that the charges against the petitioner were proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the stand of the petitioner is that he was a ‘workman’ under the first respondent, but he was not entitled to do any managerial work. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the stand of the petitioner is that he was a ‘workman’ under the first respondent, but he was not entitled to do any managerial work. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that when the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a ‘workman’ within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, it should not have gone into ‘the merits of the case and dismissed the I.D., but should have directed him to approach the Appropriate Authority for redressing his grievance; that the dismissal of the I.D. itself is an error apparent on the face of the record. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court delivered in P. Baluchamy v. State, (2003)3 L.L.N. 337, wherein it has been held that ‘the Secretaries of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks are not ‘workman’ within the meaning of Sec.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act’. On such arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for the relief extracted superior. 6. On such arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would pray for the relief extracted superior. 6. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner with no representation made on the part of the respondents, what this Court is able to assess is that the petitioner was issued with the charge memo dated 12.10.1992 for serious allegations of misappropriation and in the domestic enquiry, after following the procedures established under law relating to such domestic enquiry,.the Enquiry Officer has submitted his findings on 18.3.1994 holding the charges proved and based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Management, by its order dated 22.3.1994 has dismissed the petitioner from service, testifying the validity of which, the petitioner has gone before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul for conciliation and the conciliation Officer, having submitted the failure report, the petitioner has moved the Labour Court, Madurai raising the Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.212 of 1994 and thereafter the said Industrial Dispute having come to be transferred to the Labour Court, Trichy, the dispute came to be re-numbered as I.D.No.378 of 1995 on the file of the said Court and the second respondent Labour Court after hearing the parties has passed its Award dated 26.2.1997 dismissing the Industrial Dispute raised on the part of the petitioner thereby confirming the order of the Management date 22.3.1994 and it is against this Award of the Labour Court, Trichy made in I.D.No.378 of 1995, the petitioner has come forward to file the above writ petition praying for the relief extracted supra. 7. It is relevant for consideration that it is the petitioner who initiated the proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Trichy and it is the same petitioner who has now come forward to allege that as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in P. Baluchamy v. State, (2003)3 L.L.N. 337, he is not a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Sec.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act since it has been held in the said judgment that the Secretaries of the Primacy Agricultural Cooperative Banks are not ‘workmen’ within the meaning of Sec.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and would seek to dismiss the Award of the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli. 8. 8. While such being the case of the petitioner particularly when he was taken a stand against his own initiation of the Industrial Dispute, it is only fit and proper to pass orders setting aside the Award of the Labour Court, which is impugned herein, falling in line with the decision of the Division Bench of this Court and therefore it is not at all necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the case and hence the follow- ing order: In result, (i) The above writ petition is partly allowed to the extent of quashing the entire Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner in I.D.No.212 of 1994 before the Labour Court, Madurai which was transferred to the Labour Court, Tiruchirapalli and re-numbered as I.D.No.378 of 1995 and the Award dated 26.2.1997 passed therein. (ii) Needless to mention that the order of the disciplinary authority i.e., the first respondent Management herein dated 20.3.1994 thereby dismissing the petitioner from service stands undisturbed and persists in law and on facts. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.