ORDER : K. Chandru, J. 1. This writ petition came to be posted on being specially ordered by the Honourable Chief Justice vide order dated June 14, 2012. In this writ petition, the petitioner is the Management of Gordon Woodroffe Limited and have come forward to challenge the order dated December 23, 2004 passed by the first respondent Principal Labour Court, Chennai, in C.P. No. 48/1999. By the impugned order, the Labour Court computed a sum of Rs. 38,44,956/- as due and payable to the second respondent workman. 2. The writ petition was admitted on August 8, 2005. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted on the condition that the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the credit of the claim petition with the Labour Court within six weeks failing which the interim stay was liable to be vacated. 3. As against the interim order, the 2 petitioner Management preferred a writ appeal in W.A. No, 1874/2005. A Division Bench of this Court held that the direction to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- was reasonable and since the time for deposit had expired, a further time extension was granted, vide order dated February 6, 2006. 4. Thereafter, the second respondent filed two applications in W.P.M.P. Nos. 1 1446 and 11447/2006 directing the Management to deposit the balance amount to the credit of the claim petition and for permitting the second respondent to withdraw a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner Management. By an order dated April 28, 2006, the second respondent was permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 5. It is seen from the records that the second respondent was appointed as an Officer Trainee vide order dated December 23, 1976. Subsequently, an agreement was reached between the petitioner Managment and the second respondent on October 26, 1977 for employing the second respondent for a period of three years and the said contract for three years was subsequently renewed for another three years. However, when the second respondent was working as a Branch Manager at Secunderabad, his service were terminated. As against the order of termination dated July 12, 1984, the second respondent filed an appeal u/s 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. 6. The appeal was taken on file as T.S.E. No. 56/1984. However, when the second respondent was working as a Branch Manager at Secunderabad, his service were terminated. As against the order of termination dated July 12, 1984, the second respondent filed an appeal u/s 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. 6. The appeal was taken on file as T.S.E. No. 56/1984. Even in his appeal, the workman has described himself as Branch Manager of Baghampet High Road, Hyderabad. The Management upon receipt of the notice, objected to the maintenance of the appeal on the ground that he was the Branch Manager exercising the power of execution over three persons working under him. He was signing cheques by exercising his administrative control over the staff working under him and he was independent to take decisions on the matters of day today administration and hence, he cannot seek relief u/s 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. The authority found that the objection raised by the Management was not valid and they were directed to file a counter on merits. Subsequently, by an order dated June 6, 1985, the appeal was allowed and the order of termination was set aside and for the question that the second respondent was holding the position of Management, the authority found that by G.O. Ms. No. 4074, I.L.H., dated October 5, 1966, the provisions of the Act are applicable to persons who are employed in the position of Management. 7. Aggrieved by the final order dated June 6, 1985 passed by the authority, the Management filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 7909/1985 and the same was dismissed by this Court on October 19, 1995. 8. The Management, thereafter, preferred a writ appeal being W.A. No. 287/1996. During the pendency of the writ appeal, the Management did not have the benefit of any interim order. Finally, the writ appeal itself came to be allowed in favour of the Management by order dated February 3, 1998. 9. On remand, the matter was taken on; file by the Shops Act Authority and the Authority found that there was no oral or documentary evidence placed to show that availing of leave by the second respondent caused difficulty in administration. Therefore, the Authority found that the order of termination dated July 13, 1984 was not for a reasonable cause and consequently, set aside the same by an order dated November 25, 1998. Therefore, the Authority found that the order of termination dated July 13, 1984 was not for a reasonable cause and consequently, set aside the same by an order dated November 25, 1998. 10. As against the said order dated November 25, 1998, the Management filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 5983/1999. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted interim stay on condition that the Management should deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- within eight months, by an order dated April 8, 1999. Subsequently, the interim order was made absolute and the Management was directed to pay another sum of Rs. 50,000/- directly to the second respondent. 11. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the interim order, the second respondent preferred a writ appeal in W.A. No. 2080/1999. A Division Bench of this Court refused to interfere with the interim order. 12. Finally the main writ petition in W.P. No. 5983/1999 was taken up by this Court and that writ petition was dismissed, by an order dated February 18, 2000, with cost of Rs. 3,000/- and the order of the Shops Act Authority was confirmed. 13. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 5983/1999, the Management preferred a writ appeal in W.A. No. 1768/2000. That writ appeal was dismissed on October 30, 2000. 14. After the proceedings were over, the workman filed a claim statement u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming wages for the entire period starting from his termination till the date of his application. He totally claimed a sum of Rs. 38,44,956/- which includes salary arrears as well as interest. 15. The second respondent workman's claim petition was registered as C.P. No. 48/1999. The Management filed a counter statement contending that the second respondent is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore, he cannot maintain the application u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman filed a reply to the counter and the Management filed an additional counter statement dated November 9, 2000. It was also stated that without prejudice to their contention that the claim of the salary arrears and interest and PF amount are not maintainable, the claim of Rs. 9,69,000/- towards for rent free accommodation and Rs. 11,29,000/- towards Car Park office use are absolutely untenable. It was also stated that without prejudice to their contention that the claim of the salary arrears and interest and PF amount are not maintainable, the claim of Rs. 9,69,000/- towards for rent free accommodation and Rs. 11,29,000/- towards Car Park office use are absolutely untenable. The second respondent workman filed a reply statement to the additional counter statement filed by the petitioner Management. 16. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as P.W. 1 and also examined one M.V. Sekar as P.W. 2. On his side, 22 documents were filed and marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-23. On the side of the Management, 3 witnesses namely R. Radhakrishnan, Jaisy Devi and K.V. Muthazhagu, were examined as R.W. 1, R.W. 2 and R.W. 3. On the side of the Management, 23 documents were filed and marked as Exhibits R-1 to R-23. 17. The Labour Court relying upon the evidence placed before it, came to the conclusion that the workman was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 38,44,956/-. The Labour Court held that since the contention that the second respondent is not a workman was raised after 16 years, that cannot be accepted and he is not a Manager as contended by the Management. On the question of gainful employment, the Labour Court found that there was no evidence and therefore, straight away computed the amount, without going into the specific right under each head of the claim. 18. The second respondent approached the Government for issuance of revenue recovery certificate and the Government issued an order in G.O. (D) No. 872, Labour and Employment Department, dated June 30, 2005 directing the amount to be recovered from the petitioner Management as arrears of salary with interest. 19. Mr. S. Jayaraman, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the fact that the second respondent's appeal was allowed by the Shops Act Authority and confirmed by the Labour Court, will not automatically making the workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. For the purpose of maintaining the claim petition u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, he has to prove that he is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. For the purpose of maintaining the claim petition u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, he has to prove that he is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The objection that the second respondent was a Manager at the relevant time was overruled by the Shops Act Authority stating that even the persons, who are holding the post of Management are also entitled to file an appeal under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. Therefore, mere entertaining of the shops act appeal in favour of (the second respondent will not ipso facto make the Labour Court to hold him as a workman. 20. The said contention raised by the petitioner Management is well taken, because a perusal of the order passed by the Shops Act Authority clearly shows that even though he was considered as holding the position of Management, in view of the exemption granted by the State Government, the appeal was entertained. Therefore, the finding of the Labour Court that it is only because the said contention was raised after 16 years, the objection cannot be allowed to be sustained. In fact, the question of being considered as a workman or non-workman never arose in the past and it arose only when the second respondent filed a claim petition u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming himself to be a workman. A perusal of the evidence clearly shows that he was discharging the duties of a Manager and he himself was the Branch Manager of Baghampet at Secunderabad, at the time of termination. He did not deny that three persons were working under him and he was supervising their work also having the over all administrative power including control over those employees. Therefore, the second respondent should have approached an appropriate Civil Court claiming wages as per the orders which are confirmed by this Court more than once. The prerequisite qualification for maintaining an application u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is that a person should be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the place where he is working must be an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The prerequisite qualification for maintaining an application u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is that a person should be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the place where he is working must be an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be allowed at this short ground that the claim petition filed by the workman is not maintainable and he has to work out his remedy before appropriate forum. 21. Mr. V. Prakash, learned senior counsel for the second respondent workman placed reliance upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others, AIR 1964 SC 477 , for contending that only in case of an error apparent on the face of the records, the same can be corrected by a writ. If a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law, which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Therefore, this Court need not interfere with the order of the Labour Court. 22. Mr. V. Prakash, learned senior counsel for the second respondent workman referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in and Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (1997) 1 SCC 134 , for contending that the Court should keep larger public interest in mind while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The power under Article 226 is discretionary and it should be exercised only in furtherance of interests of justice and not merely making out of a legal point. 23. It is not clear as to how those two judgments are in any way helpful to the case of the petitioner. In this writ petition, the short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the order passed by the Labour Court is well within its jurisdiction and if there is no jurisdiction, the question of entertaining the claim petition u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will not arise. In essence, the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court which it otherwise does not have. In essence, the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court which it otherwise does not have. The finding of the Labour Court that the issue relating to jurisdiction was not raised after 16 years, must be not correct, because such a contingency arose only when the second respondent approached the Labour Court claiming the amount. It is also not as if the second respondent has no remedy. He could very well file a claim statement claiming the amount of salary and in that event, the Management could also let in evidence to show whether he was available for work or he was gainfully employed elsewhere at the relevant time. This Court set aside the impugned order only on the ground of jurisdiction and the writ petition stands allowed. In the normal circumstances, this Court could have granted some order directing the Management to pay certain amount by exercising the extraordinary power vested with the Court. Since during the pendency of the writ petition, the workman has been in receipt of more than Rs. 5,00,000/- by the interim order, this Court is not ordering any further amount and giving liberty to the workman to approach the appropriate Civil Court. No costs.