JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.05.2005 by which respondent No. 2 has refused to refer the dispute in regard to termination of services of the petitioner for adjudication to a competent court on the ground .that the petitioner being employed as Supervisor is not covered by the definition of 'workman' and further his services have been terminated on the ground of long absence. 2. After having carefully gone through the material on record since so many disputed questions of facts and law are involved and the same would only be decided after taking evidence of both the sides, the adjudication could not have been denied to the petitioner in such a casual cursory manner. Since dispute is yet to be decided by a competent court after taking evidence of both the sides, I find no justification in issuing notices to the writ petition. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.5.2005 is set aside. Respondent No. 2 is directed to refer dispute in regard to termination of services of the petitioner for adjudication to a competent court within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.Writ Petition Allowed. *******