-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 923 of 2008 Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. ..Petitioner vs. 1. Mrs.Jennifer Oerasmus and anr. ...Respondents Mr.K.M.Naik i/b Mr.M.P.Salkar for petitioner. Mr.C.U.Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.M.D.Nagle for respondent no.1. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 5th May, 2008 5th May, 2008 5th May, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This writ petition is directed against an interlocutory order in complaint bearing (ULP) No.48 of 2002 which has been filed before the Labour Court. The complaint invokes the powers and jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. 2. It is not necessary to refer to any allegations in the complaint or the stand of the petitioner employer on merits. The order dated 26th April, 2007 of 9th Labour Court, Mumbai was challenged by the respondent no.1 before me in revision and the respondent no.1 employee has succeeded in the revision application. Consequently, the finding of the Labour Court on the preliminary issue has -2- been reversed and it is held that respondent no.1 is an employee within the meaning of section 3(5) of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 as also workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The Labour Court was directed to dispose of the matter on merits and on other issues. 4. When this writ petition was argued by Mr.Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner company and Mr.Singh, learned Sr. Counsel so also Mr.Nagale representing the respondent employee a suggestion was made in the Court that it would be fair, just and proper if adjudication is allowed to go on before the Labour Court reserving the right of the petitioner company to challenge the final order in the complaint if it is adverse to it. While challenging it it would be then open for the petitioner to urge that the respondent no.1 is not an employee within the meaning of above statutory provisions. This Court would keep open all contentions of both sides in that behalf. A su ggestion was made to respondent that she should not press her interim relief application now as she has succeeded on preliminary issue and let the adjudication take places on merits. -3- 5. I am happy to note that both suggestions have been accepted. The petitioner employer does not press this writ petition but reserves its right to challenge the final order in the complaint, if adverse to it and while challenging it also raise appropriate pleas with regard to the status of the respondent. Equally, the respondent employee is not pressing for any interim relief in the complaint but would be satisfied if the complaint is adjudicated upon on merits and disposed of expeditiously. 6. Accordingly the petition is disposed of as not pressed. However, the company is at liberty to challenge the final order in the complaint if adverse to it. While challenging it the petitioner can also raise all pleas as are raised in the present writ petition and challenge the the findings in the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 7th January, 2008. It can raise all pleas at that stage with regard to the status of the respondent/employee. 7. Since the complaint (ULP) No.48 is of 2002 and pending before the Labour Court it is directed that the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and within a period of six months from today. All contentions of both -4- sides on the above issue so also on merits are kept open and no opinion is expressed thereon. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)