JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the Karnataka State Coir Development Corporation (for short, 'the Coir Board'), against the workman Vittal S/o Rama Harikantra, aggrieved by the order and award dated 3.6.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Labour Court, Hubli, in Reference No. 44/1998, which had set-aside the impugned termination order of the respondent workman dated 7.12.1993, but instead of directing for re-instatement, it has directed the payment of lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent workman. 2. The Employer-Coir Board aggrieved by the same has filed this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel, Sri. Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, appearing for the petitioner Coir Board has contended before this Court that firstly, the Coir Board is not an 'Industry' and he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Coir Board, Ernakulam, Cochin and Another Vs. Indira Devi P.S. and Others, reported in (1998) 3 SCC 259 and submitted that the matter is yet to be decided by the larger Constitution Bench to reconsider the correctness of the tests laid down in the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213 . 4. He further submitted that there was no Master and Servant, Employer and Employee relationship between the petitioner-Coir Board and respondent-Mr. Vittal S/o Rama Harikantra. He submitted that the Coir Board has only provided the training to the various candidates, including the respondent workman, who, according to the petitioner, voluntarily abandoned, even the said training. After completing their training, on a contractual basis, they were provided raw materials and based on the products manufactured by them on piece rate basis, certain payments for work done, were made to them. However, that would not constitute the payment of regular salary or wages. In the absence of such regular payment of wages or salary, no relationship of employer and employee is established by the respondent workman before the learned Labour Court. He submitted that the learned Labour Court has wrongly treated the averments made in the statement of objections in para-9 by the Coir Board, as admission on its part about the employment of the respondent as workman. He submitted that the learned Labour Court has wrongly treated the averments made in the statement of objections in para-9 by the Coir Board, as admission on its part about the employment of the respondent as workman. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order even to that extent of payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement also deserves to be set-aside, as there is no question of termination or retrenchment of the respondent workman by the petitioner Coir Board. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, Mr. H.R. Gundappa, appearing for the respondent workman submitted that the findings of the facts are based on the relevant documents including the attendance register before the learned Labour Court, would indicate that the respondent workman was a regular workman with the petitioner Coir Board and his termination without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') was illegal. Hence, the respondent workman deserves to be reinstated back in service/employment. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the matter deserves to be remitted back to the learned Labour Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. 7. The learned Labour Court must first arrive at a clear, cogent and proper finding of the fact deciding the main question of fact and law, as to whether the employment of the respondent Mr. Vittal S/o Rama Harikanth, was in the nature of the employment of workman or not? Whether the payment made on the piece rate basis for the number of products manufactured by the respondent workman under the raw materials viz. coir supplied by the petitioner Coir Board, amounts to a relationship of employer and employee, industry and workman or not, is the first question to be decided. Whether the training imparted by the petitioner Coir Board to all the candidates including the respondent workman amounts to employment or not, is also the question to be decided? 8. In the absence of relationship of Master and Servant, Employer and Employee, Industry and workman having been established on the basis of the relevant evidence, the question of alleged illegal termination or retrenchment of the respondent workman would not arise. 8. In the absence of relationship of Master and Servant, Employer and Employee, Industry and workman having been established on the basis of the relevant evidence, the question of alleged illegal termination or retrenchment of the respondent workman would not arise. If, however, the learned Labour Court on the basis of the relevant evidence can come to the conclusion and findings of the facts that such relationship of employer and employee existed between the parties, then only the learned Labour Court can go into the question of legality of the same and breach of the same under Section 25-F of the Act and other relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 9. Apparently, the learned Labour Court has not undertaken thus exercise in order to arrive at these findings, as required to be arrived at by it. Hence, the remand of the present case to the learned Labour Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition of the Coir Board is allowed. 11. The impugned order of the learned Addl. Labour Court, Hubli, dated 3.6.2009 in Reference No. 44/1998, Vittal S/o Rama Harikantra Vs. The Managing Director, The Karnataka State Coir Development Corporation, is set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Labour Court. 12. The learned Addl. Labour Court, Hubli is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, preferably within a period of one year from today. 13. Without any further notice, the parties may appear before the learned Addl. Labour Court, Hubli, in the first instance on 08.05.2017. No costs.