1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4817 OF 2009 M/s. Neel Controls .. Petitioner Vs Jayantibhai P. Desai .. Respondent R.S. Pai i/b M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co for the petitioner CORAM : Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : 24th August, 2009 P.C.: 1. The respondent was working in the company of the petitioner. He came to be terminated on 3rd May, 1995. He filed complaint (ULP) No. 276 of 1995 in respect of his termination before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, by order dated 7th April, 2006 framed five issues and ultimately the complaint came to be allowed by the said order. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Industrial Court by filing revision. The Industrial Court by order dated 5th August,2008 partly allowed the revision. The Industrial Court held that it was not necessary to interfere with the findings on issue nos. 1 Rma wp4817-09.sxw 2 and 2 and remanded the matter back with direction to decide the issue nos. 3, 4 and 5 framed on 7th April, 2006 after giving opportunity to the parties, particularly to the employer in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Being aggrieved by the oder remanding the matter back on three issues, this petition has been preferred. 2. Issue no. 1 is whether the respondent - complainant was an employee / workman as per provisions of the the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 / I.D. Act 1971. The second issue is whether the complainant was covered by Section 2(s) and section 3(5) of I.D Act and MRTU & PULP Act. As the matter has been remanded back, at this stage, I do not feel it necessary to interfere. Having regard to the well established position in law and the fact that the complaint has been pending since 1995, it would be just and proper that the complaint should be decided expeditiously. If the complaint is decided in favour of the complainant on issue nos. 3 to 5, then the present petitioner be given liberty to challenge the final decision of the Labour Court on all the issues including the first two issues. Hence, the petition is disposed of Rma wp4817-09.sxw 3 with following directions: a) The Complaint (ULP) No. 276 of 1995 be heard and decided by the Labour Court as expeditiously as possible. b) The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the final decision of the Labour Court, if occasion arises, on all issues including the first two issues. c) All rights and contentions of the parties are left open and disposal of the petition would not be deemed to have confirmed findings on any of the issues including the first two issues recorded by the Labour Court or Industrial Court in the order 7th April, 2006 and 5th August, 2008 respectively. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) Rma wp4817-09.sxw 4 Rma wp4817-09.sxw