UDAY JANARDHAN Vs. GEO CHEM LABORATORIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court directing the parties to lead evidence on the preliminary issue as to whether the petitioner is a "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has observed that other issues would be considered, only if the preliminary issue is answered in favour of the petitioner. The learned advocate for the petitioner takes strong objection to the procedure adopted by the Labour Court and relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajiv B. Gundewar v. Crompton Greaves Ltd, 2000 3 LLJ 774 (Bom), as also on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration, 1983 2 LLJ 425SC . He draws my attention to the judgment of the Gujrath High Court in the case of Sarabhai M. Chemicals Ltd. v. Rajnikant V. Shah,2008 2 CLR 472, and of this Court in the case of Bata India Ltd. v. K.S. Shinde in Writ Petition No. 4834 of 2008. He submits that by deciding only one issue at a time, the litigation would get protracted, which would lead to hardship for the workman.

(2.) The learned advocate for the respondent submits that it is not an inflexible rule that all issues must be decided together. He points out that this is the view taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of H.S. Rawat v. Voltas Ltd, 2005 1 LLJ 448Bom . He submits that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be necessary for the petitioner to prove that he is a workman when the petitioner himself has, in his statement of claim, stated that he was a Senior Accounts Officer. He submits that the facts in the present case do not warrant an answer to all issues from the Tribunal or Labour Court and instead the issue regarding whether the petitioner is a workman or not should be decided first. The learned advocate concedes that evidence on all issues may be recorded but submits that if the Tribunal concludes that the petitioner is not a workman, there would be no need to answer the other issues regarding termination of service of the petitioner.

(3.) Having heard the learned advocates on this issue, the judgment of D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration, (supra), delivered by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court continues to hold the field even today. The Supreme Court has observed thus at p. 426