* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No. 6428/2008 % Date of Decision: 30 July, 2009 # The Management of Aashlok Nursing Home Private Ltd. ..... PETITIONER ! Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate VERSUS $ Ms. Usha Panicker .....RESPONDENT ^ Through: Mr. H.S. Thukral, Advocate. CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporter or not?NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?NO S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) M/s. Aashlok Nursing Home Private Limited, who has filed this writ petition, is the management. The respondent was appointed by the petitioner as Staff Nurse and in the course of her employment, she was promoted to the post of Senior Nurse. She was terminated by the petitioner after about 18 years of service vide termination letter dated 22.06.2007. She raised an industrial dispute with regard to her termination which was referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. 2. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC for rejection of the reference on the ground that the respondent is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court vide its impugned order W.P.(C) No.6428/2008 Page 1 of 3 dated 08.08.2008 dismissed the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC relying upon certain judgments referred in the said order. The Court did not go into the question as to whether the respondent is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This question is yet to be decided by the Labour Court. The petitioner management wants that the question as to whether the respondent is a workman or not should be decided as a preliminary issue. This request made on behalf of the management cannot be accepted because the petitioner contends that the nature of duties performed by the respondent were of supervisory nature and falls in the category of managerial functions which excludes her from the definition of workman as provided in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. On the other hand, the respondent contends that she is a workman and because of the nature of duties performed by her with the petitioner management, she cannot be excluded from the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These contentions urged by both the parties makes the question as to whether the respondent is a workman or not, a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in the absence of evidence to be adduced by the parties regarding the nature of duties performed by the respondent. The issue whether the respondent is a workman or not cannot be ordered to be decided as a preliminary issue because it will unnecessarily delay the adjudication of reference pending before the Labour Court. The labour disputes need to be adjudicated expeditiously and in case more than one issue arises out of the reference, then the decision on all those issues should be given together to avoid delay in the final decision of the reference. W.P.(C) No.6428/2008 Page 2 of 3 4. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order that may call for an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of. JULY 30, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'ma' W.P.(C) No.6428/2008 Page 3 of 3