1 wp3320-11 ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3320 OF 2011 Shri Ishwar Khandu Kamble ..Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Prakash S. Devdas for the petitioner Mr.M.M.Malvankar for respondent nos.1 to 3 Mr. Kishore Shetty for respondent nos.4 to 8 CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 2nd MAY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 25.03.2011 passed by the learned Member, Industrial court, Mumbai rejecting the petitioner s application below Exhibit U-2 for interim relief. ’ 2 wp3320-11 2. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Mumbai. The Industrial Court rejected the petitioner s application for interim relief mainly on the ground ’ that the petitioner as Assistant Station Master was discharging the duties of managerial and supervisory nature and earning wages of about Rs.19,000/- per month and as such he was not workman as defined in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Court held that whether the petitioner is a workman under the Industrial Court, is to be decided at the time of hearing of the complaint. The Industrial Court further held that the petitioner filed a complaint beyond the period of limitation without filing any application for condonation of delay. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the preliminary issue is raised by the respondents then also the court is not precluded from granting interim relief. He relies on the judgment in the case of Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla vs. Hind Rubber Industries P.Ltd. reported in 1997 DGLS (Soft.) 296. 4. The Industrial court rejected the application for interim relief 3 wp3320-11 mainly on two grounds i.e. the application was barred by limitation and there was no application for condonation of delay and secondly it was yet to be decided whether the petitioner, as Assistant Station Officer discharging the supervisory and managerial duties is workman as defined in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. I have gone through the interim order and do not find any legal infirmity in the discretionary order passed by the Industrial Court requiring interference by exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Hence, petition is rejected. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, the Industrial Court is directed to expedite the hearing and disposal of the matter as far as possible within 6 months from today. 7. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (K.K. TATED, J.)