https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288022 The Supreme Court held that the State Government's decision that the respondent was not a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was justified. The Court emphasized that the State Government's order under Section 10(1) was administrative, not judicial, and could not be closely scrutinized. The High Court's direction to refer the dispute was deemed erroneous, and the appeal was allowed. The judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and each party was directed to bear their own costs. en-us Mon, 14 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 May 2020 13:04:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288022 The Supreme Court held that the State Government's decision that the respondent was not a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was justified. The Court emphasized that the State Government's order under Section 10(1) was administrative, not judicial, and could not be closely scrutinized. The High Court's direction to refer the dispute was deemed erroneous, and the appeal was allowed. The judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and each party was directed to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 14 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288022