CENTRAL GROUP Vs. MOTIRAM S THAKARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith, in both the petitions.

(2.) The following common questions of law arise for determination in both these petitions:

(3.) Placing reliance in the decisions of the apex Court in the matters of Central Bank of india Ltd. v. P. S. Rajagopalan reported in AIR 1964 SC 743 : 1963-II-LLJ-89, Inland Water transport Corporation Ltd. v. Workmen ana anr. reported in AIR 1974 SC 1604 : 1974 (4) scc 696 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr. reported in 1995 (1) scc 235 : 1995-I-LLJ-395, as well as Tara ana ors. v. Director, Social Welfare and Ors. , reported in AIR 1999 SC 1508 : 1998 (8) SCC 671 : 1998-II-LLJ-632, the learned advocates for the Petitioners submitted that when the claimant's status as the workman itself is denied by the opponents in the proceedings initiated by the claimant under Section 33-C (2) of the said act, the Labour Court is not entitled to decide the issue regarding status of the claimant as that of the workman under the said Act as an incidental issue to the main issue relating to the entitlement for the amount claimed by him and the Labour Court having totally ignored this well-settled law has acted illegally while passing the impugned orders, and therefore, the same warrant interference.