Judgment :- Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This mandamus appeal is directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 17th February, 2012 in W.P. 067 of 2012 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was rejected by the learned Trial Judge by holding that the order passed by the learned Labour Court was perfectly justified and there was no scope for entertaining the said writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Trial Judge, the instant mandamus appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner before this Court. Let us now consider the facts of the case in which the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Judge. A reference was made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi on 29th June, 2009 vide notification No.L-40012/37/2009(IR)(DU) to the Labour Court in the matter of an industrial dispute between the writ petitioner, workman and M/s. Asman Ex-servicemen Security Service Company, Port Blair in respect of the following matters:- “1) Whether the action of the Management of M/s Asman Ex-servicemen Security Service, Port Blair, in terminating the services of Shri Binoy Bhusan Chakraborty, with effect from 1.8.08 is legal and justified? 2) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?” The said point of reference was subsequently modified by issuance of a corrigendum on 2nd/3rd January, 2011 in the following manner:- “The following amendment is made in this Ministry’s Order of even number dated 29/06/2009 regarding industrial dispute between the management of CGM, BSNL, Port Blair and their workman Shri Binoy Bhushan Chakraborty: In the schedule of the order dated 29.06.2009, the following may be substituted: FOR: M/s Asman Ex-servicemen Security Services, Port Blair. READ: Chief General Manager, BSNL, Port Blair.” Thus in view of the said corrigendum, the subject matter of reference practically related to an issue regarding legality of termination of the service of Shri Binoy Bhushan Chakraborty by the Chief General Manager, BSNL, Port Blair with effect from 1st August, 2008. The learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence of the writ petitioner recorded in the said proceeding, held that Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable in the instant case as admittedly BSNL, Port Blair did not engage Binoy Bhushan Chakraborty as its workman in its establishment. The learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence of the writ petitioner recorded in the said proceeding, held that Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act is not applicable in the instant case as admittedly BSNL, Port Blair did not engage Binoy Bhushan Chakraborty as its workman in its establishment. The learned Labour Court also observed that the said Binoy Bhushan Chakraborty admitted in cross-examination, that he had no contract of service with BSNL rather he had contract of service with M/s. Asman Ex-servicemen Security Service Company which after being selected in the tender, began to work under BSNL. The learned Labour Court also recorded in the order that the said Binoy Bhushan Chakraborty admitted in his evidence that his service was not terminated by BSNL. Thus after scanning the evidence of the said Binoy Bhushan Chakraborty, the learned Labour Court ultimately dismissed the said reference case by holding that the point of reference cannot be a subject matter of industrial dispute as there was no relationship of employer and workman between BSNL and the said Binoy Bhushan Chakraborty. The legality and/or propriety of the said judgment and/or order dated 16th January, 2012 passed by the learned Labour Court at Port Blair in I.T. Case No.3 of 2009 was challenged by the writ petitioner before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by his Judgment and/or order dated 17th January, 2012 refused to entertain the writ petition by conquering with the aforesaid findings of the learned Labour Court. The propriety of the said judgment and/or order passed by the learned Trial Judge of this Court on 17th February, 2012 in W.P. No.067 of 2011, is under challenge in this Mandamus Appeal. After hearing the submission of the learned advocate of the respective parties, we have meticulously considered the entire evidence adduced by the writ petitioner/appellant before the learned Labour Court in connection with the said reference case. We find that the writ petitioner in his cross-examination categorically admitted that he was working under M/s Asman Ex-servicemen Security Service Company. He also admitted in the cross-examination that BSNL did not terminate his service. He further stated in the cross-examination that initially he was engaged by M/s. Kamaraj Multipurpose Labour Contract Co-operative Society Ltd. and thereafter he had been working under M/s. Asman Ex-servicemen Security Service Company. He also admitted in the cross-examination that BSNL did not terminate his service. He further stated in the cross-examination that initially he was engaged by M/s. Kamaraj Multipurpose Labour Contract Co-operative Society Ltd. and thereafter he had been working under M/s. Asman Ex-servicemen Security Service Company. He further stated that M/s. Asman Ex-servicemen Security Service Company got the tender and began to work under BSNL. He further admitted that there was no contract between himself and BSNL. If the evidence adduced by the appellant is read as a whole including the admission made by him in his cross-examination, this Court has no hesitation to hold that there was no relationship of employer and workman between BSNL, Port Blair and the writ petitioner as admittedly there was no contract of service between BSNL, Port Blair and the appellant and the appellant’s service was admittedly also not terminated by BSNL, Port Blair. Keeping in mind the definition of the Industrial Dispute as defined in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 this Court has no hesitation to hold that the dispute which was referred to the Labour Court is not an industrial dispute and as such the learned Trial Judge was absolutely justified in not entertaining the writ petition which was directed against the order passed by the learned Labour Court by which the reference case was dismissed on the ground as mentioned above. In the facts of the instant case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that neither BSNL, Port Blair can be regarded as the employer of the writ petitioner within the meaning of employer as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, nor the writ petitioner can be held to be workman under BSNL within the meaning of workman as defined in the said Act. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order impugned. The appeal thus stands dismissed. The order passed by the learned trial judge is affirmed. Let the records relating to I.T. Case No.3 of 2009 be sent down to the learned Labour Court immediately. Raghunath Bhattacharya, J. I agree.