In a writ challenging the Industrial Court’s direction to decide the Petitioner’s status as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act as a preliminary issue, the Bombay High Court has restored the Labour Court’s order directing trial of all issues together, holding that piecemeal adjudication defeats the very purpose of expeditious industrial adjudication. The Court held that the law is fairly well settled that ordinarily all issues must be tried together by an industrial adjudicator and that there cannot be piecemeal adjudication of different issues involved in a reference.
The Court reiterated that where an industrial dispute involves both the issue of an employee’s status as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the issue of fairness of the domestic enquiry, the status issue cannot be directed to be tried as a preliminary issue; all issues must be tried and decided together to avoid piecemeal adjudication and delay.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed that the Industrial Court had grossly erred in reversing the well-considered order dated 29 February 2020 passed by the Labour Court. The Court noted that the mere fact that the Labour Court had earlier directed, by order dated 20 April 2016, that the issue of status be tried as a preliminary issue did not create any estoppel preventing the Labour Court from subsequently directing that the status issue be tried along with the other issues.
The Court further observed that the Industrial Court had mechanically recorded a finding that wherever the issue of status is raised along with the issue of fairness in the enquiry, the status issue must be tried as a preliminary issue, and that there was no such law laid down by any Court. The Court noted that the Complaint had been pending since 2013 and that 13 long years had elapsed, with the only progress being the decision on two preliminary issues relating to fairness of the enquiry and perversity of the inquiry report by the Part-I order dated 22 February 2021.
The Court also observed that if the Industrial Court had not passed the impugned order, the Complaint would have been long since decided, as the Respondent would have led evidence to justify its action before the Labour Court. The Court further noted that the Respondent had so far not challenged the Part-I order dated 22 February 2021 and that the Industrial Court ought to have been alive to the fact that its order would result in further delay in the decision of the Complaint.
Also read Goa Nightclub Fire Case: Supreme Court Dismisses Bail Pleas Of Luthra Brothers, Ajay Gupta
Briefly, the Petitioner, Aniruddh Kumar Dhaniram Upadhyay, was initially appointed as a Technician with the Respondent-establishment, M/s. Emeresons Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd., and was later promoted to Senior Technician and then to Engineer. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 17 October 2012, following which a disciplinary enquiry was initiated and he was dismissed from service on 12 September 2013. Aggrieved by the termination, the Petitioner filed complaint before the Labour Court, Thane, which was resisted by the Respondent by filing a Written Statement. On 20 April 2016, the Labour Court framed issues and directed that the first three issues, namely, the Petitioner’s status as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, fairness of the enquiry, and perversity of the Enquiry Officer’s findings, shall be treated as preliminary issues.
The Petitioner thereafter filed an application seeking that only the issue of fairness in the enquiry be decided as a preliminary issue and that the status issue be decided along with the other issues. By order dated 29 February 2020, the Labour Court allowed this application and directed that only the issue of fairness in the enquiry shall be tried as a preliminary issue. Aggrieved, the Respondent filed Revision before the Industrial Court, Thane. During the pendency of the Revision, the Labour Court proceeded to decide the preliminary issue relating to fairness of the enquiry and, by order dated 22 February 2021, held that the enquiry was not conducted fairly and properly and that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse.
Thereafter, by order dated 3 May 2023, the Industrial Court allowed the Revision and directed that the issue of the Petitioner’s status as a workman be decided as a preliminary issue, with liberty to the Respondent to challenge the Part-I order dated 22 February 2021 if the Petitioner was held to be a workman, and with a stipulation that the Part-I order would automatically cease to exist if the Petitioner was found not to be a workman.
