1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 563 OF 2010 Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai ...Petitioner. V/s. Ramesh Shinde ...Respondent. ----- Mr. Anil C. Singh with Mr. Ashwin R. Singh i/b R.A. Malandkar, for the Petitioner. Mr. C.R. Naidu, for the Respondent. ------ CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 4 th MARCH, 2010. P.C: 1. The Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Industrial Court allowing the revision application thereby declaring that the Respondent is a workman within the meaning of section-2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is desirable that the entire complaint is decided including on merits. There is no warrant for staying the hearing of the complaint on merits in view of the preliminary issue raised by the Petitioner to the effect that the Respondent is not a workman. 2 3. Prima facie, at least there is considerable substance in the Respondent’s contention that he is a workman. This is not a case which overwhelmingly suggests that the Respondent is not a workman. For instance, it has been held that the Respondent was treated as a member of the Union since inception. This would indicate that the Petitioner had also treated the Respondent as a member of the Union. Indeed it is one of the factors to be taken into consideration and weighed in the balance with the other factors. 4. To reiterate therefore it is desirable in the present case that the Petitioner be granted liberty to challenge the impugned order from the final order, if necessary. The rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.