-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1675 OF 2009 Dr.(Mrs.) Nutan G. Irani : Petitioner V/s. M/s.Nawrojee Wadia Maternity Hospital & Ors. : Respondents ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2024 OF 2009 Nowrosjee Wadia Maternity Hosp. : Petitioner V/s. Dr.(Mrs.) Nutan Ghulam Irani & Ors. : Respondents ... Mrs.Neeta Karnik for the petitioner in W.P. No.1675 of 2009 & respondent no.1 in W. P. No.2024 of 2009. Mr.T.S.Shetty i/b. Mr.S.S.Shetty for respondent nos.1 to 3 in W.P.No.1675 of 2009 & petitioner in W.P.No.2024/2009. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 16, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioner Dr.(Mrs.) Nutan G. Irani has challenged the judgement and order of the Industrial Court -: 2 :- by which the learned Industrial Court has remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision, in accordance with law. 2. In a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, the Labour Court held that the petitioner, who was working as a Senior Resident Anaesthetist was a workman. On the basis of the petitioner’s case that her qualifications were as follows:- "The non applicant no.1 is holding the degrees of M.B.B.S. DA.I Anaesthesiology. M.D. and also post graduate diploma in Hospital Administration". and her duties were as follows:- "1. Attend routine operations as a Anaesthetist. 2. To do "on call duties" i.e. available 24 hours for emergency operations. 3. Help Junior Colleagues in difficulty whenever they seek help or advise during giving Anaesthetist (sic) to patients any time of day and night. 4. Attending to all high risk patients and whenever complications occur during surgery and Anaesthetist (conducted by Junior Colleagues) at anytime of day or night irrespective whether "on call" or not and even during leave period. 5. On request of the senior Gynaecologist high risk or normal patients on their personal request any time of the day or night in the Hospital, the complainant is required to attend Operation Theatres. -: 3 :- 6. Seeing that operation theatres equipments and instruments are kept ready and available for smooth functioning of the theatres with the help of Matron sister in charge presently matron being Mrs.Saroj Shinde." the learned Labour Court set aside the termination of the petitioner on the ground that the complaint was not maintainable and the respondent-Hospital is an industry. The learned Labour Court also came to the conclusion that the respondents have committed an unfair labour practice. 3. In revision, the Industrial Court considered the findings rendered by the Labour Court and on the basis of evidence, noticed that the petitioner had admitted that her duties were not those of a Clerk and she was neither a Technician nor was doing technical work. The Industrial Court also noticed that in the evidence of the Administrative Officer, it was suggested on behalf of the petitioner in cross-examination that her duties were 60% technical and 40% clerical in nature, which was denied. The Industrial Court thus recorded a categorical finding that the observation of the Labour Court that the petitioner’s duties were technical in nature is not only not supported by any material on record but is contrary to the evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Industrial Court has come to the -: 4 :- conclusion by mis-appreciation of the evidence and there was no reason for the Industrial Court to come to such a conclusion. It may, however, be noted that the Industrial Court has not come to a conclusion on the main aspect of the matter, but has merely come to the preliminary conclusion that there is no evidence for certain findings of the Labour Court and, therefore, remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 4. It is difficult to find fault with the order of the Industrial Court since it may not have been proper for the Industrial Court to record contrary findings of fact and reverse the entire order without appreciating the import of the evidence on the other points. In these circumstances, I am of view that there is no error of law apparent on the face of the judgement of the Industrial Court and Writ Petition No.1675 of 2009 is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. The Labour Court shall decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law. 5. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in Writ Petition No.2024 of 2009 filed by the Hospital in which it is contended that the Industrial Court ought to have re-appreciated the entire evidence and come to the conclusion that the respondent no.1 therein i.e. -: 5 :- Dr.(Mrs.) Nutan Ghulam Irani is a workman. As indicated above, the Industrial Court has correctly remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision, in accordance with law. 6. Both the Writ Petitions are hereby dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J.