( 1 ) IN the present petition, the petitioner-employer has challenged the legality of the order dated 29. 11. 2000 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. ( 2 ) THE respondent had filed a recovery application No. 2595/2000 against the present petitioner. The recovery application was sought to be resisted by the petitioner on several grounds including the ground that the respondent is not engaged as a workman since he was drawing salary of Rs. 6000 per month and was discharging duties as a Manager. The petitioner also requested the Labour Court to decide the question of status of the respondent and consequently the maintainability of the recovery application as a preliminary issue. The Labour Court, however, rejected the application filed by the petitioner-employer and provided that the said question will be decided after recording of evidence of both sides along with the recovery application itself. While disposing of the application of the petitioner, it was observed that to decide the issue in question, it would be necessary to record evidence and in absence of any evidence, it would not be proper to presume that the respondent herein was discharging managerial duties. ( 3 ) THE order passed by the Labour Court was at an interim stage. The Labour Court exercised discretionary powers and provided that the issue can be more conveniently decided along with the main application itself since it would require recording of evidence to hold whether the employee was engaged as Manager and was discharging manegerial duties or not. I do not find that the Labour Court has committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order. No interference, therefore, is called for in the present petition. The petition is therefore rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief is vacated. .