1 911-923-group.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6183 OF 2011 M/s. Manugrapha India Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner. V/s. Shri Shashikant N. Patil .. Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6176 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6177 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6178 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6179 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6181 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6182 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6184 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6185 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6186 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6187 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6188 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6189 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6190 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6191 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6194 OF 2011 WITH 2 911-923-group.sxw WRIT PETITION NO. 6196 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6197 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6198 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6218 OF 2011 Mr. V. P. Vaidya, for the Petitioner in all the matters. Mr. Rajesh Mirchandani i/b. Mr. Abhay Nevagi & Associates, for the Respondents in all the mattes. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATE : 3rd AUGUST, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 All these Petitions are disposed of by common order, as issues involved are identical. 3 By these Petitions, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-Original Employer challenges the order dated 8th April, 2011 passed by learned Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Kolhapur below Exhibit C-20 rejecting Petitioners' application for preliminary issue whether the Respondent- Original complainants are workers within the meaning of worker under Section 2(s) of the Industrial 3 911-923-group.sxw Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as “the said Act”). 4 The Petitioners terminated Respondent's service and, therefore, initially, the Respondent/ Original Complainants preferred complaints of Unfair Labour Practice in Industrial Court at Kolhapur. These complainants were withdrawn by them and subsequently the Respondent- employee approached the Labour Commissioner and pursuant to that, the Labour Commissioner made a Reference. Thereafter, the Respondents filed their statement of claims before the Labour Court at Kolhapur. In that reference, Petitioners filed their written statement. In the written statement, they raised objection whether the Respondents are workman as per Section 2(s) of the said Act. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed application for deciding as preliminary issue whether the Respondent- Original Employees are workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the said Act. The said application was rejected by the learned Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Kolhapur on 8th April, 2011. Hence present Petitions. 5 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 8th April, 2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Kolhapur is against justice, equity and good conscience and the same is liable to be set aside. He submits that the Respondents were working with the Petitioner for the last several years. They were 4 911-923-group.sxw promoted from time to time and on the date of their termination, they were not workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the said Act. He further submits that though the Petitioner in their application for preliminary issue relied on several judgments of Supreme Court as well as High Court, the Labour Court without considering those authorities rejected their application. On the basis of this submission, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Presiding Officer dated 8th April, 2011 is against justice, equity and good conscience and the same is liable to be set aside. 6 I have gone through the order dated 8th April, 2011, application filed by the Petitioner and other documents on record. Admittedly, the impugned order passed by the Labout Court is interlocutory order. Respondent's have filed their statement of claim in the year 2010. Thereafter, Petitioner filed their Written Statement on 25th May, 2010 and the Reference is now ready for hearing. Preliminary issue which the Applicants want to be decided is a mix question of law and facts and therefore, Industrial Court still have to allow the parties to lead evidence and thereafter, in case the preliminary issue is decided in favour of the Respondent- complainant, the Industrial Court will have to hear the parties on other issues. This is likely to cause further delay the proceedings. Therefore, as the matter was ready for hearing, the Industrial Court relied 5 911-923-group.sxw on the decision in the matter of Voltas Ltd., Mumbai v/s. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, II, reported in 1999 – L.A.B. Industrial Court page 3040 and Sarabhai M. Chemicals Ltd., v/s. Rajnikant V. Shah, reported in 2008 II CLR 472 and have rightly held that all the issues will be decided together. 7 Our High Court in the matter of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v/s. Shri Nanuram Verma and others, reported in 2001 LAB Industrial Court- page 1536 held that if the employer by preferring Revision against decision on preliminary issues, and at interlocutory stage tries to delay the final proceedings, the Court should not interfere in Revision application. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment reads thus:- “Para- 16:- In the instant case, though respondent No.1 was dismissed from service in the year 1992 and approached the Labour Court immediately thereafter, the dispute is yet not settled finally by the Labour Court and Petitioner is trying to delay the final settlement by challenging the order passed by the Labour Court at the interlocutory stage. It is, however, true that under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, remedy of revision is provided before the Industrial Court. However, on the basis of the same analogy, where this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution should refuse to exercise jurisdiction against such interlocutory order, applies to the Industrial Court in case of revision under Section 44 of the said Act. It is not doubt true that though Industrial Court does have revisional power in view of above referred Section of the Act, however, Industrial Court was justified in refusing to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of revision moved by the petitioner at the interlocutory stage and on preliminary issue.” 6 911-923-group.sxw 8 On the facts and circumstances of the present case, I see no cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 8th April, 2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Kolhapur. Hence, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed with the directions to the Industrial Court to expedite the hearing of the matters. 9 No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.)