JUDGMENT : M. K. THAKKER, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the respondents waives service of Rule. 2. All these petitions are arising out of identical issue. Hence, a common judgment is passed for disposal of all petitions. 3. These petitions are filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Anand granting the reinstatement without continuity of service without back wages to the respondent. 4. The facts of SCA No.4710 of 2023 considered herein and required for disposal of the present petitions, is as follows: 4.1. The petitioner-Company was facing difficulties and hardships and it was difficult to save the company in view of the rumours spread in the market with regard to unsound financial conditions of the company. The petitioner has decided form scheme with regard to voluntary resignation of the employees. It was discussed among several employees as to whether the said employees would like to continue with the company or would like to part ways by finding new employment. The employees on their own decided to part their ways and some of the employees were terminated in accordance with the terms of their contract. Around 676 employees out of 1300 employees have put their resignation and amount of Rs.8,24,68,297/- was paid to such employees. Out of 676 employees 18 employees have raised industrial dispute challenging to such resignation. Some of the employees challenged the resignation on the ground that they have never tendered resignation and documents does not contain their signature and they have been illegally retrenched in violation of section 25(a) of the I.D.Act. Some of the employees have alleged that they have been forced to resign and the resignation is not voluntary. Remaining employees stated that they were assured that after 2 to 3 months they would be taken back and that is how they have resigned from the services. The terms of the reference suggests that the learned labour Court was directed to decide that whether the respondents are entitled to reinstate with continuity of service and 100% back wages or not. 4.2. The statement of claim filed by the concerned respondent alleges that service were terminated wrongfully without paying notice pay or retrenchment compensation and therefore, termination was unreasonable, illegal and void. 4.2. The statement of claim filed by the concerned respondent alleges that service were terminated wrongfully without paying notice pay or retrenchment compensation and therefore, termination was unreasonable, illegal and void. As against the same, written statement was filed containing that respondent are working on managerial or supervisory post and was getting monthly salary of more than Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, they cannot be termed as workman as per section 2(s) of the I.D.Act and on that ground it was contended that reference was incompetent and not maintainable. It is further contended that because of the global recession and financial crunch it had become necessary to reduce the production and consequently, the services of respondents wherein in first instance were sought to be terminated as per the provisions contained in letter of appointment by issuing termination order but the respondent thereupon gave resignation which was accepted and respondents were relieved from the services. The service of respondents are hardly for few months. The reference was filed against the Elecon EPC Project Ltd which was subsequently amalgamated with the petitioner company as per the scheme or arrangement sanctioned by this Court in Company Petition No.398 of 2016 and Company Application No.290 of 2016 The reference was accordingly amended and petitioner was replaced as first party in the reference in place of Elecon EPC project Ltd. 4.3. The oral evidence given by the workman before the learned labour Court reiterating the contention of the statement of the claim and the petitioner has also produced the evidence in the form of letter of appointment, confirmation letter, transfer order, termination order, resignation of the respondent his letter not to terminate as he was willing to resign, clearance form and service certificate below Exh.7, collectively. During the cross-examination of the workmen, the signature on the appointment letter, confirmation letter, transfer order and termination order was admitted however, he denied his writing and signature on the letter of resignation, clearance form and service certificate. The application below Exh.29 was filed before the learned labour court to send those documents for verification to the hand writing expert to FSL, Gandhinagar where the signature was disputed and subsequently, endorsement was made on 16.09.2021 giving consent to exhibit those documents without prejudice to the contention and accordingly all documents were exhibited. 4.4. The application below Exh.29 was filed before the learned labour court to send those documents for verification to the hand writing expert to FSL, Gandhinagar where the signature was disputed and subsequently, endorsement was made on 16.09.2021 giving consent to exhibit those documents without prejudice to the contention and accordingly all documents were exhibited. 4.4. Thereafter, witness of the petitioner namely Kalpesh Parmar, Senior Manager HR was examined wherein, he stated that respondents were of supervisory or managerial category and discharging the duties of assigning the work to the Machine Man and their Assistant working on machines in the different departments. It was further stated during the evidence that all the respondents voluntarily resigned by giving the resignation which was accepted and therefore, terminated automatically got superseded and cancelled. It was submitted that show cause notice came to be issued by the department of labour for alleged breach of section 25(n) of not taking prior permission before retrenchment and therefore, Criminal Case No. 1368 of 2015 was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anand for breach of section 25n. The said complaint was quashed by this Court in Cr.M.A. No.17194 of 2015 vide judgment and order dated 01.05.2018 against which Special Leave Application being Diary No.46035 of 2019 filed before the Apex Court which was also dismissed on 06.12.2021. Learned Labour Court after considering all the evidence has passed impugned judgment and award partly allowing the reference IT No.13 of 2014 by granting reinstatement with continuity of service without back wages, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Paresh Brahmbhatt, learned advocate Mr.R.K.Mishra, Mr.Girish Das for the workmen and learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave and learned advocate Mr.Kirtan Mistry for the Management. 5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that learned labour court committed error in holding that respondent was workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The details of the designation of respondents and their salary in these petitions are as follows: Sr. 5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that learned labour court committed error in holding that respondent was workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. The details of the designation of respondents and their salary in these petitions are as follows: Sr. No. Designation Petition No. Salary per month 1 Assistant Manager SCA No.4710 of 2023 53,646/- 2 Senior Manager SCA No.4697 of 2023 21,606/- 3 Junior Engineer SCA No.4968 of 2023 23,847/- 4 Junior Engineer, subsequently promoted as Senior Engineer w.e.f.12.12.2011 SCA No.4716 of 2023 22,416/- 5 Assistant Manager SCA No.5211 of 2023 39,184/- 6 Junior Engineer SCA No.7334 of 2023 22,103/- 7 Junior Engineer SCA No.4664 of 2023 19,767/- 8 Junior Engineer SCA No.7539 of 2023 22,103/- 9 Junior Engineer SCA No.7204 of 2023 26,620/- 10 Senior Engineer SCA No.6514 of 2023 26,214/- 11 Junior Engineer SCA No.8144 of 2023 22,373/- 12 Junior Engineer SCA No.17380 of 2023 23,027/- 13 Junior Engineer, subsequently promoted as Senior Engineer w.e.f.01.04.2011 SCA No.17285 of 2023 24,847/- 14 Junior Engineer SCA No.17922 of 2023 24,528/- 15 Junior Engineer SCA No.8667 of 2023 21,653/- 5.2. It is submitted that from the above details it reveals that all the respondents are getting the salary exceeding Rs.10,000/- per month. The work of all the respondents was in the nature of supervisor and respondent of SCA No.4710 of 2023 has admitted in his deposition that as Assistant Manager his main duty was that of Machine Shop supervisor. Learned labour court has held that in absence of any authority to appoint, terminated or suspended any work or give wage rise, he cannot be said to be falling under the definition of section 2(s) of the I.D.Act. 5.3. It is further admitted by the respondent that his duties were of assigning or supervising the work of machine man in his department. Learned labour Court has committed error in shifting the onus on the present petitioner to prove that respondent does not fall under the definition of section 2(s) and has failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that respondent issue any notice or discharge any workman or had given pay rise to any workman. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that learned Labour Court also committed error in holding that nature of the work of the respondent was technical and skill type and therefore, he is not covered under the definition of workman. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that learned Labour Court also committed error in holding that nature of the work of the respondent was technical and skill type and therefore, he is not covered under the definition of workman. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that learned Labour Court also committed error in holding that that petitioner failed to prove that resignation below Exh.32 was voluntary given. Learned advocate Mr.Dave submits that there was no challenge with regard to the resignation by the respondent either in the statement of claim or in his examination in chief. Rather, the fact of resignation was concealed by the respondent and during the cross examination it was initially denied with regard to the handwriting on the document below Exh.32 to 35 and only when the application below Exh.29 was submitted to send those documents for examination handwriting expert from FSL, endorsement was made with regard to the admitting of the signature. In that background learned labour court ought to have been believed the case of the present petitioner that resignation was given with consent and without any coercion. However, learned Labour Court has awarded reference in favour of the respondent therefore, same is required to be set aside. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Dave further submits that learned Labour Court has also committed jurisdictional error in relying on the provisions of section 25(n) of the I.D.Act along with section 25g, and 25h of the Act. It is submitted that in absence of not fulfilling the criteria mentioned under the definition of workman those provisions are not applicable in the case of the respondent. As the resignation was given by the respondent, it cannot be said that it is retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the Act. Learned advocate Mr.Dave further submits that the standing order from section 23(1) to section 23(1/1) which prescribes notice period of 14 days for resignation and notice of 30 days for resignation, is provided in the letter of appointment. It is submitted that in absence of falling under the definition of workman relying on the above standing orders by the learned labour Court is committing the jurisdictional error and therefore also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that in absence of falling under the definition of workman relying on the above standing orders by the learned labour Court is committing the jurisdictional error and therefore also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Learned advocate Mr.Dave further submits that findings recorded with regard to the breach of section 25(n) in view of the quashing of CC No.1368 of 2015 by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.17194 of 2015. Against the order SLP also came to be dismissed by Apex Court on 6.12.2021. Learned advocate Mr.Dave also relies on the decision rendered by this court in the judgement and order dated 24.08.1999 in Special Civil Application No.1869 of 1999 upholding the view taken by the learned labour court in the case of Shri Bharatbhai Kantibhai Patel who was working as Junior Engineer in the service that said petitioner is not covered under the definition of workmen as per section 2(s) of the I.D.Act. 6.1. The present respondent was holding much higher position as Assistant Manager, therefore also, learned Labour Court has committed error in awarding the reference in favour of the respondent by holding that respondent is a workman. Learned advocate Mr.Dave relies on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Linen Kumar Ray; Managemenet, M/s Express Publication (Madurai) Ltd Vs M/s Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd; Lenin Kumar Ray wherein, the similar case the Apex Court has held that the employee who was Junior Engineer and subsequently, promoted as Assistant Engineer and got the salary of more than Rs.1,600/- on administrative side was not workman as defined under section 2(s) of the Act. Learned advocate Mr.Dave further submits that without giving any cogent reasons judgement and award was passed by the learned labour court in favour of the respondent, on that ground also petition is required to be allowed and impugned judgement is required to be set aside. 7. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra appearing for the workman in SCA No.4697/2023, 4716/2023 and 4664/2023 has submitted that petitioner has joined in the service in SCA No. 4710 of 2023 on 21.06.2012 and was continued up to 13.09.2013 without any break. The appointment of the present petitioner was as a permanent employee. The record of the present petitioner was clean and no disciplinary proceedings have ever been initiated against him. The appointment of the present petitioner was as a permanent employee. The record of the present petitioner was clean and no disciplinary proceedings have ever been initiated against him. Without assigning cogent reasons the service were wrongly terminated on 13.09.2013 under the guise of having financial crunch. The Management has initially started threatening the workman for dismissal and pressurized the workman to resign from the service and as many as 676 permanent and confirmed workman were shown to have resigned which indicates that Management has started unfair labour practice, coersion, intimidation and other tactics to reduce the work force which is nothing but retrenchment under the Act. 7.1. The Management has informed by the communication that your services are not anymore required and thereafter, it has been shown that petitioner has voluntarily resigned from the services. The petitioner was working under the directions of the supervisor and was not having any administrative, executive and financial powers and the workman was doing technical and little bit supervisory work, however, in absence of any power to appoint subordinate, dismiss or to suspend, the petitioner can be termed as workman under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. Without taking prior permission from the appropriate government, 676 permanent and confirmed workman were forced to resign and therefore, this was nothing but a mass termination by the company. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra has submitted that it is for the employer to prove the case of voluntary resignation and in absence of evidence of the witness before whom the resignation was tendered, it cannot be said that Management has proved that workman has not voluntarily resigned. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that in absence of the perversity and illegality, this Court may not exercise the power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the petition may be dismissed being devoid of merits. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Paresh Brahmabhatt, who is appearing for the workman in SCA No.4710/2023, 4968/2023, 5211/2023, 4780/2023, 7334/2023, 7539/2023, 7204/2023, 8144/2023, 5197/2023, 5060/2023, 4960/2023, 21726/2023, 421/2024, 443/2024, 650/2024 submits that though it is projected that resignation was given by the workmen, considering the bright future prospects, however, neither any acceptance letter nor any approval of the said resignation was communicated to the present workman. Learned advocate Mr.Paresh Brahmabhatt submits that similar wordings in other 54 resignation letters i.e ‘with a bright future prospect’ this resignation is given, shows that all the workmen were forced to resign from the service and their signatures were taken by the Management on the so called resignation letter. Learned advocate Mr.Paresh Brahmabhatt submits that the notice pay was made on 24.09.2013 which is more than after 3 months also suggests that as an after thought this payment was made by the Management. Learned advocate Mr.Paresh Brahmabhatt submits that onus is on the employer who asserts that learned labour Court would not have jurisdiction in absence of the fulfilling the conditions under section 2(s) as it was asserted by the Management therefore, burden would be on the Management to prove the same. Learned advocate Mr.Paresh Brahmabhatt submits that non-examination of Mr.Paneri before whom the resignation was tendered, the learned court has rightly held that resignation has not been proved. Learned advocate Mr.Paresh Brahmabhatt has relied on the decision rendered in the case of Shankar Chakravarthi Vs Britannia Biscuit Co.Ltd and Anr. reported in AIR 1979 SC 1 652 and LIC of India Vs.Ram Pal Singh Bisen reported in 2010 4 SCC 491 and submitted that in absence of examination of witness, resignation letter cannot be said to be proved before the Court. Learned advocate Mr.Paresh Brahmabhatt submits that terms of reference has never been challenged before the higher forum and therefore, learned court cannot decide the reference beyond the terms of reference therefore, it is not open for the Management to plead before that respondents are not fulfilling the conditions of section 2(s) and therefore, they cannot be said to be workman. Learned advocate Mr.Brahmabhatt has relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Mayank Desai Vs Sayaji Iron & Engg Co Ltd & 1, SCA No.8138 of 1995 and submitted that when the reference is not filed before this Court challenging the terms subsequently it is not open for the Management to contend that learned labour Court has not properly made the terms of reference. Learned advocate Mr.Paresh Brahmabhatt submits that in view of the above, no interference is required in the petition filed by the Management and the petition which are filed by the workman claiming 100% back wages is required to be allowed. Learned advocate Mr.Paresh Brahmabhatt submits that in view of the above, no interference is required in the petition filed by the Management and the petition which are filed by the workman claiming 100% back wages is required to be allowed. Learned advocate Mr.Paresh Brahmabhatt further submits that even in the case of SCA No. 6514 of 2023 there was no resignation and in that background also it can be asserted that there was mass termination of 676 workmen without taking the permission from the learned labour Court. Learned advocate Mr.Paresh Brahmabhatt submits that in view of the above submissions these petitions filed by the Management be dismissed. 8.1. In addition to the submissions made by the learned advocate for the workman, it is submitted by Learned advocate Mr.Girish Das appearing in SCA Nos. 9897/2024, 9740/2024, 17922/2023 and 17287/2023 that model standing orders is binding to the present petitioner and in breach of the same the workman would be entitled for the relief under I.D.Act. Learned advocate Mr.Girish Das submits that the reliance which was placed by the learned advocate with regard to the previous petition filed by the Junior Engineer wherein this Court has dismissed the petition at the threshold would not bind to this Court as per the decision rendered in the case of S.K.Narayanan Vs Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad & Anr. reported in 1983 G.L.H.183 wherein, it is held that if decision is not rendered on merits then the same can be determined in the subsequent challenge. Learned advocate Mr.Girish Das submits that present workmen in above mentioned petitions are entitled for full back wages as learned labour Court has held termination illegal and in absence of evidence of gainful employment learned labour Court has committed error in not awarding 100% back wages. Learned advocate Mr.Girish Das submits that the evidence with regard to the gainful employment was placed after the closing pursis is filed by both the parties and therefore, workmen was not having any opportunity to controvert the same, on that background also petition filed by the workman is required to be allowed. 9. In the rejoinder of the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the workman, Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that pleadings of forced resignation or lucid was not taken into statement of claim and therefore, beyond the pleadings no arguments can be made. 9. In the rejoinder of the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the workman, Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that pleadings of forced resignation or lucid was not taken into statement of claim and therefore, beyond the pleadings no arguments can be made. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave has relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Municipal Committee Taura Vs Harpal Singh & Anr. reported in 1998 5 SCC 635 and submitted that it is not open for the workman now to plead that he was forced to resign as same was not pleaded before the learned labour court in statement of claim. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that due to financial crunch, the Management has decided to reduce the workforce and therefore, all the workmen were relieved on their tendering the resignation after payment of more than 8 crores under the different heads to different employees and only 32 employees filed reference out of 676 of the employees, at the relevant point of time had suggested that they would like to part way by finding new employment and on their own they decided to resign from the service considering the financial existing crises. 9.1. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that even those 32 employees have also raised industrial dispute after more than one year wherein also, there was no pleadings with regard to violation of section 23 of the model standing orders. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that it is not the case of any of the employee that though there designation has been mentioned as Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer etc., they were given different nature of work and they have been forced to do clerical nature of work. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that had it been the case of designation though given as Junior Engineer, Senior Engineer and Assistant Engineer then there would have been different aspect. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that none of the workman has adduced any evidence to show that duties and nature of work. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave the findings recorded by the learned labour court by allowing the reference is that no evidence is produced by the Management to prove that the nature of the work of the respondent workmen is not fulfilling the conditions of section 2(s) of the I.D.Act. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave the findings recorded by the learned labour court by allowing the reference is that no evidence is produced by the Management to prove that the nature of the work of the respondent workmen is not fulfilling the conditions of section 2(s) of the I.D.Act. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that even without examining the award which was produced on record by the learned labour court as also the judgment of this Court in the case of very post in question the learned labour Court has awarded reference in favour of the workman. In absence of any production application, learned Labour Court has committed error in drawing adverse inference and to hold that petitioner in absence of any evidence adduced by petitioner respondent can be said to be a workman. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that learned labour Court has also believed the plea of the workman that though they were designated as Junior Engineer, Senior Engineer and Assistant Engineer and getting the salary of more than Rs.50,000/- they are doing work of clerk. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that without considering the fact that when the clerk would be available on the minimum wages of less than Rs.10,000/- why the Management would pay wages of Rs.50,000/- to the person who is having degree of B.E.Mechanical and take the work of clerk. The work which is to be done by the Junior Engineer as per award passed by the learned labour court in reference no.483 of 1992 which was confirmed by this Court it is held that Junior Engineers have to supervise the work of contractual employees and they are working under him. Learned Mr.Dipak Dave submits that in fact forceful resignation was also contrary among the workman as some of the employees came with specific case that they had not tendered the resignation however, their resignations were on the record and in other employees have come with plea that there was forged sign in the resignation. When the said resignation application was asked to be sent to the FSL the consent was given admitting the signature on the resignation. However, the learned labour Court has held that resignation was not voluntary. 9.2. When the said resignation application was asked to be sent to the FSL the consent was given admitting the signature on the resignation. However, the learned labour Court has held that resignation was not voluntary. 9.2. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave has relied on the decision rendered in the case of General Manager (Electrical), Rengali Hydro Electric Project vs Girdhari Sahoo reported into (2019) 10 SCC 695 and submitted that it is for the employee to prove that resignation was forceful. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave has also relied on the decision in the case of Shri Ram Manohar Bande vs Ukranti Mandal reported in AIR 2024 SC 2225 and submitted that when the appellant never took a stand that he was pressurized to tender the resignation pressure neither he had adduced any evidence in the nature of communication alleging the same the submission of the employee that he was pressurized cannot be believed. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that except in SCA No.4710 2023 wherein, the resignation was tendered and competent authority has proved on the same in all other matters that acceptance letters were communicated. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that in clearance form employees himself as shown that they resigned and on the very day their dues was calculated and service certificates were also issued showing that the employee has received their dues. 9.3. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave has relied on the decision redered in the case of J.K.Cotton reported in (1990) 4 SCC 227 and submitted that considering the paremataria of section 2(s) of the I.D.Act and section 6n of the U.P Industrial Disputes Act it is held by the Apex Court that voluntary retirement would include resignation and once resignation is given it would not fall within the definition meaning of retrenchment as per section 6n of the U.P Industrial Disputes Act which is paremataria to section 25 of the I.D.Act. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that even subsequent to tendering resignation no communication was addressed withdrawing such resignation is made no any complaint is filed for the period of 1 year. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that in the same transactions pertaining to resignation with identical facts learned labour court in reference case no.14 of 2015 rejected the reference. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that even subsequent to tendering resignation no communication was addressed withdrawing such resignation is made no any complaint is filed for the period of 1 year. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that in the same transactions pertaining to resignation with identical facts learned labour court in reference case no.14 of 2015 rejected the reference. The said award was challenged before this Court in SCA No.11017 of 2023 wherein, this Court by order dated 28.08.2024 has held that no objection has been raised by the employee and on the contrary he accepted the amount of salary remitted in the account of concerned employees and that amount was not also refunded to the company thus, the stand of the employee that respondent company has forcefully taken resignation cannot be accepted. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that learned labour court did not disbelieve the fact of resignation, acceptance of it and payment of amount in the bank account of employee however, subsequently it is held that resignation was given non voluntarily. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that learned labour Court further examined that as per model standing order 23(1) to 23(4), 14 days notice is mandatory and as 14 days notice is not given and no procedure is followed as per the standing orders 23(1) to 23(4), resignation cannot be said to legal. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that no such plea was ever taken by any of the employee. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave referring the said standing orders submitted that the word used is “May” it is not mandatory but it is directory in nature and the provisions of section 23(c) is absolutely overlooked which clearly says that in case no notice pay is paid by employee prior to leaving the service employee would be liable for sue for damages. 9.4. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that it is always open for the employer to waive the notice period and at the best employer could have been claimed the damages if notice period is not waived however employee cannot be compelled to work since contract of service cannot be specifically enforced. 9.4. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that it is always open for the employer to waive the notice period and at the best employer could have been claimed the damages if notice period is not waived however employee cannot be compelled to work since contract of service cannot be specifically enforced. Be that as it may, looking to the standing orders 23(1) to 23(6) it is clear that it has no application in the present case since resignation was tendered and accepted which would mean that there was a waiver of notice period on the part of the employer. Submitting this learned advocate submits that only on the ground that resignation is not in consonance with the standing orders, resignation was held to be given unvoluntarily. 9.5. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that out of 676 employees only 32 employees have made complaint and out of which only 22 employees have succeeded in that challenge from which 16 petitions are in this group before this Court. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that in view of the voluntary resignation, acceptance and receipt of the appointment letter, learned labour Court has committed error in allowing the reference in favour of the workman. Learned advocate Mr.Dipak Dave submits that looking to the length of service of employees which is less than 1 year, less in the nature and designation of job, their qualification, the award of reinstatement maybe set aside and the petitions filed by the Management be allowed as well as petition filed by the workman be dismissed. 10. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for both the parties and carefully perusing the materials on record, the moot question arising for consideration before this Court is whether the employees with the Management, in these petitions, can be termed as the workman under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and whether the learned labour Court has rightly awarded the reference in favour of the workman. To determine the above question, it is necessary to have a close look on provisions contained in section 2(s) of the I.D.Act which reads as under: "Sec.2(s): workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-[Substituted by Act 46 of 1982, Section 2, for Cl. (s) (w.e.f. 21.8.1984).] (i)who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950(46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957(62 of 1957); or (ii)who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or (iii)who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or (iv)who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.” 10.1. Considering the above definition, for interpreting section 2(s) of the I.D.Act the nature of duty performed by the petitioner when he was in employment of the establishment is required to be narrated and after considering the nature of duties and work performed by him, it can be asserted that whether he is entitled to be called as workman. There is no dispute as per the proposition that the definition of workman given in section 2(s) of the I.D.Act is a inclusive and exclusive definition. The section refers to the term supervisory twice in sub-section however, at both the place, said term is used in different context. In the first place, in the main section 2(s) itself the word used in the context of a person doing supervisory work for hire or reward. The nature of such work may either be manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory.The same can be termed as inclusive definition. In the first place, in the main section 2(s) itself the word used in the context of a person doing supervisory work for hire or reward. The nature of such work may either be manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory.The same can be termed as inclusive definition. However in sub-clause IV of section 2(s) the word supervisory is used in the context that any person who is employed in such supervisory categories and drawing the wages exceeding Rs.10,000/- per mensem or exercise either by the nature of duties attached to the office or by reasons of power vested in him functions mainly of managerial nature. Thus, sub-class IV of section 2(s) lays down two requisites for excluding a person from definition of workman. Firstly, he must be a person drawing the wages of more than Rs.10,000/- per month and secondly, his duties and functions are mainly of managerial cadre. These are cumulative prerequisites and if both the conditions are satisfied, in that case the person may not be termed as a workman. Keeping these definition in mind if one examines the nature of duties and functions performed by the workman in the present case then it transpires as under: a) The workman in SCA No.4710 of 2023 namely Achyutkumar.V.Patel was appointed as Assistant Manager or 21.06.2012 and getting the monthly salary of Rs. 45,115/- at the time of joining. Subsequently, service of the workman was transferred to Elecom EPC project limited from 01.04.2013 and thereafter, he resigned on 13.09.2013. As per paragraph 7 of statement of claim, he was doing the technical little bit supervisory work and as per his own evidence he was working as machine man and doing work of clerk. On showing the appointment letter below Exh.22 during cross-examination he admits that his post was Assistant Manager. His education qualification is B.E.Mechanical Engineer and as per the evidence of Kalpeshbhai Parmar witness of petitioner Management, he was having the work of Supervisor of machine man and was discharging duty by allotting the work and guiding to the machine man in the event of any technical defects. The aforesaid evidence of the Management remains unchallenged during the cross-examination by the workman. His total CTC was stated per month to be Rs.51,565/- including HRA, Medical Allowance, Education Allowance etc. The aforesaid evidence of the Management remains unchallenged during the cross-examination by the workman. His total CTC was stated per month to be Rs.51,565/- including HRA, Medical Allowance, Education Allowance etc. b) Another workman of SCA No.4697 of 2023 namely Ashishbhai Pravinbhai Suthar was working as Senior Manager from 01.04.2009 and has resigned from service on 25.09.2013 and his last drawn CTC was Rs.28,924/-. Initially, his appointment was as Junior Engineer in the year 2009, subsequently, he was promoted as Senior Engineer and he was allotted the work of CMC Operator when he was appointed as Junior Engineer, however, he has not led any evidence to show the nature of work and duties. c) The workman of SCA No.4968 of 2023 and SCA No.4960 of 2023 namely Dharmeshkumar A. Patel was working as Senior Engineer and was getting the monthly salary of Rs.30,249/- per month. He was working since 01.12.2009 and as per his own evidence he was doing the work of inspection and job packing in Quality Department. However, no evidence was led with regard to the nature of work and duties. d) The workman in SCA No.4716 of 2023 namely Urvinkumar Manubhai Patel was initially appointed as Trainee, CMC Operator with VNN Manufacturing and Investor from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006 and thereafter again his period was extended from 01.07.2006 to 31.03.2008 and subsequently, appointed as Junior Engineer with Prayas Engineering from 01.04.2008 and thereafter promoted as Senior Engineer in grade S04 on 12.12.2011. He was getting the monthly salary of Rs.29,797/- per month and has contended in his statement of claim that even after appointment from CMC operator to the Senior Engineer, work of CMC operator was taken from him. As per the evidence led by the witness of the Management namely Kalpesh Parmar who is examined below Exh.53 it is contended that predominant nature of the duties of the workman was administrative, managerial and supervisory nature and never work on machine and as the employee engaged by the Company or by the contractors working in the department where the workman was working, he was falling under the non workmen category. It is further contended that workman has never objected at the time of allocation of the work and as per the crossexamination, it reveals that under the Junior Engineer would allot the work to the labourers and would supervise the work of the workers. It is further contended that workman has never objected at the time of allocation of the work and as per the crossexamination, it reveals that under the Junior Engineer would allot the work to the labourers and would supervise the work of the workers. It also comes from the record that work of the CMC Operator has to operate the machine and guide the workers, however no documentary evidence was led by either of the parties. e) The workman of SCA No.5211 of 2023 namely Bharatkumar.M.Joshi was appointed as Assistant Manager in Heavy Machine Shop Department and in Painting Section. He was getting the monthly salary of Rs. Rs.47,684/- and as for the evidence of the Management, under his supervision, Senior Executive Officers were working. His work is to supervise the labourers working under the contract employment and to check quality of the goods. One of the part of his duty is to purchase the material regarding painting section and to see that it may be stored at appropriate place. The aforesaid evidence of the witness of the Management remained unchallenged by the workman. f) The workman in SCA No.421 of 2024 and SCA No. 4780 namely Chetankumar Patel appointed as Junior Engineer and getting the monthly salary of Rs.25,472/-. As per his statement of claim, he was working as CMC Operator however, though his appointment was as Junior Engineer, during the evidence of the Management it is stated that he was allotted the work for per appointment letter and there was no complaint made during the allocation of work which was inferior to nature to his post. g) The workman of SCA No.4664/2023 Brijeshkumar Bhatt was appointed as Junior Engineer getting the monthly salary of Rs.26,353/- on 01.11.2008. Initially, his appointment was as a Trainee thereafter, as CMC operator and then he was selected and appointed on the post of Junior Engineer. During the cross-examination, he admits that initially as CMC Trainee operator he was appointed, after getting the confirmation letter from Prayas Engineering Limited he was appointed as Junior Engineer. Thereafter, no evidence was led by any of the parties with regard to the work and duties of the workman. h) The workman in SCA No.7334 of 2023 namely Harshadgiri Gosai was appointed as Junior Engineer getting the salary of Rs.27,423/- per month. Thereafter, no evidence was led by any of the parties with regard to the work and duties of the workman. h) The workman in SCA No.7334 of 2023 namely Harshadgiri Gosai was appointed as Junior Engineer getting the salary of Rs.27,423/- per month. During the evidence recorded by the learned Court it was contended that he was operating machine however, by referring the appointment letter, he admits that no such duty has been assigned to him. Thereafter, no evidence was led to prove the duties and work carried out by him. i) The workman in SCA No.7539 of 2023 and SCA No.5197 of 2023 namely Sanketkumar Patel was working as Junior Engineer getting the monthly salary of Rs.27,500/-. Neither of the parties has led evidence with regard to the duties and nature of work of the workman herein. j) The workman in SCA No.7204 of 2023 Nileshkumar Padhiyar was serving as Senior Engineer and getting the monthly salary of Rs. 29,887.73 per month. In the written statement it is contended by the Management that he was performing work of supervisory and administrative nature and it is contended that initially he was appointed as Junior Engineer on 08.12.2006 and thereafter, he was promoted as a Senior Engineer on 09.11.2009. During the cross-examination of the workman he admits that as a Trainee Engineer, he was getting a stipend of Rs.3,000/- and thereafter, he was appointed on fix pay scale as a Junior Engineer from 16.12.2016 to 15.12.2008. He pleaded ignorance with regard to the increment of the salary from post of Junior Engineer to Senior Engineer and contended that though he was appointed as Senior Engineer but worked as a Junior Engineer. He admits that he does not have any documents to show that being a Senior Engineer he worked on machine. During the evidence of the witness of the petitioner, it comes on the record that he was working in supervisory and administrative capacity. k) The workman in SCA No.6514 of 2023 Jignesh Dahyabhai Patel appointed as Senior Engineer was getting the salary of Rs.30,862/- and has admitted during the examination-in-chief that he was doing the work of observing the machines in Assembly Department and to resolve in case of any fault in the machine. However, none of the parties has led any evidence with regard to the duties and nature of work of the workman. However, none of the parties has led any evidence with regard to the duties and nature of work of the workman. l) The workman of SCA No.17380 of 2023 Vipulkumar Dhanjibhai Dalwadi was serving as Junior Engineer and getting the salary of Rs.28,586/- per month. None of the parties has adduced any evidence regarding the nature of the work and his duty. m) The workman in SCA No.9740 of 2023 and SCA No.17287 of 2023 namely Tushar Bhuvanbhai Panchal who was working as Senior Engineer and getting this wages of Rs.31,567/- per month. No evidence was led with regard to the nature and duty of work. n) The workman in SCA No.17922 of 2023 Mukeshbhai Bhagwandas Gohil was serving as Junior Engineer and getting the wages of Rs.27,028/-. None of the parties has led any evidence with regard to the nature and duty of the workman. o) The workman in SCA No.8667 of 2023 Sheikh Abdulmati working as Junior Engineer and getting the monthly salary of Rs.26,830/-. During the evidence of the workman it comes on record that he was working on the floor where all Junior Engineers are working however, no evidence was led regarding the nature and duty of work. p) The workman in SCA No.8078 of 2023 Jayeshkumar Patel working as Junior Engineer and getting the salary of Rs.27,027/-. The workman in SCA No.8144 of 2023 namely Panchal Dhavalkumar Dilipbhai was working as Junior Engineer and getting the salary of Rs. 25,098/-. No evidence was led with regard to the nature of work and duties of the workman. He is having education of diploma in Mechanical Engineering. 10.2. From the above description of each workman, it transpires from the record that there is a hierarchy where first would be the labours of contractor, above them, Junior Engineer and above them, Senior Engineers, above them, Executive Engineer and then Assistant Manager. Considering this hierarchy if one may examine the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court for holding that all the claimants are falling under the purview of section 2(s) of the I.D.Act then it comes on record that though it was disputed with regard to the status of claimant i.e workman no issue was framed neither any evidence was appreciated to that effect. Only cursory reasons assigned for holding that claimants are workmen is that though it is burden of the Management to prove the same Management has not discharged the same and in absence of any evidence regarding powers of termination produced by the Management, adverse inference was drawn. At this stage it is required to consider that onus lies on whom to prove that claimants are workmen. If the decision rendered by Apex Court of Lenin Kumar Ray (supra) express publication is referred then it transpires that it is held by the Apex Court that onus of proving the nature of employment rest on the person claiming to be workman within the definition of section 2(s) of the I.D.Act. Similar was the case before the Apex Court in the above judgement, where the claimants were initially appointed as Junior Engineer in Group-3 Admin and thereafter as the Assistant Engineer (EMC) in Group-2A Admin and getting the salary of Rs. 6805.45 in the year 2001 i.e prior to amendment. The Apex Court has held as under: “13. Evidently, the employee was appointed as Junior Engineer (E&C) with effect from 07.06.1997 under Group 3 (Admn) with a salary of Rs.4761.75 per month. Clause 14 of the appointment order issued by the management makes it clear that after confirmation of the job, the termination of service will be by one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice by either side. It is not in dispute that the posting of the employee in the cadre of Junior Engineer was confirmed with effect from 07.06.1998 vide letter dated 13.07.1998. As per the letter dated 25.05.2000 of the management, the employee was promoted as Assistant Engineer (E&C) in Group 2A (Admn) with effect from 01.05.2000 and his revised salary was Rs.6008.79 per month. The services of the employee as Assistant Engineer were confirmed with effect from 01.05.2001 vide letter dated 30.04.2001 and it was categorically stated in the said letter that all other terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment order dated 07.06.1997 shall continue to hold good. Vide letter dated 08.10.2003, it was informed that the services of the employee were no longer required by the management and hence, he was relieved from duty forthwith. 14. Vide letter dated 08.10.2003, it was informed that the services of the employee were no longer required by the management and hence, he was relieved from duty forthwith. 14. During the course of examination, the employee deposed as W.W.1 that he was not an executive cadre employee and there were senior officers to supervise and control his work. But, in the crossexamination, he asserted that he was supervising the work of two juniors who were working under him. According to M.W.1- Senior Manager of the management, the employee was an executive of the management and the management appointed two Junior Engineers and their works were being supervised by the said employee. 15. The law is well settled that the determinative factor for “workman” covered under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, is the principal duties and functions performed by an employee in the establishment and not merely the designation of his post. Further, the onus of proving the nature of employment rests on the person claiming to be a “workman” within the definition of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. 16. In the present case, there is no specific document adduced relating to the actual work and functions performed by the employee. In the absence of any concrete material to demonstrate the nature of duties discharged by the employee, the employment orders issued by the management will have to be taken into consideration and as per the same, the employee was appointed as Junior Engineer and was promoted as Assistant Engineer, on the administrative side. It is the evidence of M.W.1 that the employee was supervising the work of two junior Engineers, who were working under him, which was also admitted by the employee in his cross examination, as W.W.1. Even according to the employee, the nature of duties and functions discharged by him was of supervisory. As such, applying the preamended provision of section 2(s), since the employee was terminated from service on 08.10.2003 and was drawing salary of more than Rs.1,600/-, he does not come within the definition of “workman”. Therefore, we hold that the employee is not a “workman” as defined under section 2(s) and is not covered by the provisions of the I.D. Act. Therefore, we hold that the employee is not a “workman” as defined under section 2(s) and is not covered by the provisions of the I.D. Act. In view of the same, the order of the High Court upholding the finding of the Labour Court that the employee was a “workman” within the definition of post-amended section 2(s), is liable to be set aside.” 11. The decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sonepat CoopSugar Millsa Vs. Ajit Singh reported in 2005 3 SCC 232 is also required to be referred wherein the Apex Court has held as under: “16.Thus, a person who performs one or the other jobs mentioned in the aforementioned provisions only would come within the purview of definition of workman. The job of a clerk ordinarily implies stereotype work without power of control or dignity or initiative or creativeness. The question as to whether the employee has been performing a clerical work or not is required to be determined upon arriving at a finding as regard the dominant nature thereof. With a view to give effect to the expression to do "any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work", the job of the concerned employee must fall within one or the other category thereof. It would, therefore, not be correct to contend that merely because the employee had not been performing any managerial or supervisory duties, ipso facto he would be a workman. 17.In Miss A. Sundarambal vs. Government of Goa, Daman and Dieu and Others [ (1988) 4 SCC 42 ], teachers serving in an educational institution being not found to be performing any duty within the aforementioned category has been held not to be workmen. Similarly, an advertising manager, a chemist employed in a sugar mill, gate sergeant in charge of watch and ward staff in a tannery, a welfare officer in a commercial educational institution have also not been held to be workmen. The Respondent had not been performing any stereotype job. His job involved creativity. He not only used to render legal opinions on a subject but also used to draft pleadings on behalf of the Appellant as also represent it before various courts/authorities. He would also discharge a quasi-judicial functions as an Enquiry Officer in departmental enquiries against the workmen. Such a job, in our considered opinion, would not make him a workman. 18. He not only used to render legal opinions on a subject but also used to draft pleadings on behalf of the Appellant as also represent it before various courts/authorities. He would also discharge a quasi-judicial functions as an Enquiry Officer in departmental enquiries against the workmen. Such a job, in our considered opinion, would not make him a workman. 18. In S.K. Verma (supra), this Court without taking into consideration the earlier binding precedents and in particular the decision of May & Baker (India) Ltd. vs. Workmen [ AIR 1967 SC 678 ] arrived at a conclusion that an employee who does not perform any supervisory or managerial nature of duties, would be a workman. S.K. Verma (supra) was held to have been rendered per incuriam by a Constitution Bench of this Court in H.R. Adyanthaya (supra). 19.The question came up for consideration recently before this Court in Mukesh K. Tripathi vs. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC and Others [ (2004) 8 SCC 387 ], wherein it was held : “21."Once the ratio of May and Baker (supra) and other decisions following the same had been reiterated despite observations made to the effect that S.K. Verma (supra) and other decisions following the same were rendered on the facts of that case, we are of the opinion that this Court had approved the reasonings of May and Baker (supra) and subsequent decisions in preference to S.K. Verma (supra). 22.The Constitution Bench further took notice of the subsequent amendment in the definition of 'workman' and held that even the Legislature impliedly did not accept the said interpretation of this Court in S.K. Verma (supra) and other decisions. 23.It may be true, as has been submitted by Ms. Jaisingh, that S.K. Verma (supra) has not been expressly overruled in H.R. Adyanthaya (supra) but once the said decision has been held to have been rendered per incuriam, it cannot be said to have laid down a good law. This Court is bound by the decision of the Constitution Bench.” This court opined : “34."The definition of 'workman' as contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 includes an apprentice, but a 'workman' defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 must conform to the requirements laid down therein meaning thereby, inter alia, that he must be working in one or the other capacities mentioned therein and not otherwise. 36.A 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 must not only establish that he is not covered by the provisions of the Apprentices Act but must further establish that he is employed in the establishment for the purpose of doing any work contemplated in the definition. Even in a case where a period of apprenticeship is extended, a further written contract carrying out such intention need not be executed. But in a case where a person is allowed to continue without extending the period of apprenticeship either expressly or by necessary implication and regular work is taken from him, he may become a workman. A person who claims himself to be an apprentice has certain rights and obligations under the statute." 20.The said decision has been followed by this Court in U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Shiv Mohan Singh. 21.It is now trite that the issue as to whether an employee answers the description of a workman or not has to be determined on the basis of a conclusive evidence. The said question, thus, would require full consideration of all aspects of the matter. 22.The jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to make an award in the dispute would depend upon a finding as to whether the concerned employee is a workman or not. When such an issue is raised, the same being a jurisdictional one, the findings of the Labour Court in that behalf would be subject to judicial review.” 12. This Court has also considered the decision of Apex Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs A.S.Raghavendra reported in 2024 6 SCC 418 wherein, Apex Court has held as under: “26.A bare perusal of the above makes it crystal clear that absence of power to appoint, dismiss or conduct disciplinary enquiries against other employees was not the only reason for the Court to conclude in Ved Prakash Gupta (supra) that the appellant therein was a “workman”. At this juncture, we may note that although Ved Prakash Gupta (supra) was decided by a 3-Judge Bench, in a later judgment by a 2-Judge Bench of this Court in S K Maini v M/s Carona Sahu Company Limited, (1994) 3 SCC 510 , it was held that: “11.It should be borne in mind that an employee discharging managerial duties and functions may not, as a matter of course, be invested with the power of appointment and discharge of other employees. It is not unlikely that in a big set-up such power is not invested to a local manager but such power is given to some superior officers also in the management cadre at divisional or regional level.” The judgment in S K Maini (supra) is innocent of Ved Prakash Gupta (supra), but we do not find any inconsistency in the statement of law laid down in S K Maini (supra), given our reading of Ved Prakash Gupta (supra) as enunciated hereinabove. 27.That being said, in our considered view, mere absence of power to appoint, dismiss or hold disciplinary inquiries against other employees, would not and could not be the sole criterion to determine such an issue. Holding otherwise would lead to incongruous consequences, as the same would, illustratively, mean that, employees in high-ranking positions but without powers to appoint, dismiss or hold disciplinary enquiry would be included under the umbrella of “workman” under Section 2(s), ID Act. We cannot be oblivious of the impact of our decisions.” 13. Learned labour Court instead of framing the issue for the purpose of determining whether employees are falling under the ambit of ‘workmen’, have cursoraliy held that as no evidence was led with regard to the powers of appointment, dismissal or holding disciplinary enquiry against other employees the employee can be termed as workmen. In the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the above case where it is held that this would not be a sole criteria to conclude the employee under the umbrella of workman. The employees in high ranking position in asbence of powers to appoint, dismiss or hold disciplinary enquiry would not be straight away falling under the definition of section 2(s) of the I.D.Act. The employees in high ranking position in asbence of powers to appoint, dismiss or hold disciplinary enquiry would not be straight away falling under the definition of section 2(s) of the I.D.Act. In absence of any detailed findings given by the learned labour Court this Court is of the view that learned labour Court has committed jurisdictional error in awarding the reference in favour of the workman. In view of the above discussions, the claimants cannot be said to be workmen within the ambit of section 2(s) of the I.D.Act and therefore, finding recorded by the learned labour Court is required to be reversed and is accordingly reversed. 13.1. Even on the issue of resignation was forced or given voluntarily in none of the statement of claim the averment were made or any dispute was raised with regard to the resignation. The factum of the resignation was not under challenge and in absence of the same learned labour Court has arrived at the conclusion that resignation was tendered non voluntarily. It is contended that in absence of the evidence of Mr.Paneri the employer has failed to establish that the resignation was voluntarily given. This Court is of the view that if the workman has asserted that it was forceful resignation then it is duty of the workman to establish the same. When the employees have tendered resignation, dues were paid to the employees, at no point of time the resignation has been withdrawn, the complain with regard to the resignation was after more than one year and in that background learned labour Court has committed error in holding that there was forceful resignation. Some of the employees have contended that they were forced to sign however, some of the employees content that their signature was forged. But in the event of sending the application of resignation to the FSL the endorsement was made giving no objection with regard to admission of evidence of resignation. 14. The judgement relied by the workman in the case of Shankar (supra) would not come for the rescue of the workman as in the instant case after crediting the payment of amount in the bank account, it is not open for the employees to contend that this was forceful resignation, more particularly, when resignation was not withdrawn. On that count also impugned order deserves to be set aside. 14.1. On that count also impugned order deserves to be set aside. 14.1. The learned Labour Court has also overlooked the award passed in Reference No.483 of 1992 filed by the employees of the same company posted on the designation of Junior Engineer wherein, it is held that person engaged as Junior Engineer cannot be considered as a workman within meaning of section 2(s) of the Act. The aforesaid decision was upheld by this Court in SCA No.1869 of 1999 and therefore also, learned labour Court has committed error in concluding reference in favour of the workman. Considering overall circumstances these petitions, filed by Management, deserves to be allowed. The judgment which was relied by the learned advocate for the workmen being S.K.Narayanan (supra) regarding that decision if not rendered on merits then same can be determined in the subsequent challenge is concerned, this Court is of the view that when the detailed judgment was given by the learned labour court in the identical nature of dispute which was upheld by this Court, it cannot be said that decision was not rendered on merits. Therefore, that judgment would not come for the rescue of the workmen. 15. Resultantly, petition filed by Management i.e SCA Nos. 4710/2023, 4697/2023, 4968/2023, 4716/2023, 5211/2023, 4780/2023, 4664/2023, 7334/2023, 7539/2023, 7204/2023, 6514/2023, 8144/2023, 17922/2023, 17380/2023 & 17287/2023 is allowed, Rule is made absolute and in view of the judgement rendered above, the petitions filed by the workmen i.e SCA No.5197/2023, 5060/2023, 4960/2023, 9897/2024, 9740/2024, 21726/2023, 421/2024, 443/2024, 650/2024 deserves to be dismissed. Hence, dismissed and Rule is discharged. Civil Applications: In view of the judgment passed above, all civil applications are disposed of.