Bombay High Court
Rajiv Bhalchandra Gundewar vs Crompton Greaves Ltd. on 24 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: [2000(85)FLR602], (2000)IIILLJ774BOM
Author: R.M. Lodha
Bench: R.M. Lodha
ORDER R.M. Lodha, J.
1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mr. Naik advocate waives service for respondents.
2. By consent, Rule is heard finally at this stage.
3. This writ petition is by the Petitioner who is complainant in complaint (ULP) No. 301 of 1999 before the 6th Labour Court at Mumbai. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Court on November 30, 1999 whereby, the said Court had directed the concerned Labour Court to decide the question whether the complainant is workman or not as a preliminary issue and if the answer is in the negative, the concerned Court is not required to decide the remaining issues. The learned counsel for Petitioner submits that if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would occasion in unnecessary protraction of ligitation. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the procedure suggested by the Industrial Court is not in conformity with the settled law.
4. Mr. Naik, learned counsel for employer on the other hand, submits that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Industrial Court cannot be said to have erred in passing the order dated November 30, 1999.
5. The complainant in the complaint has prayed for declaration that by terminating his services vide termination order dated March 9, 1999, the employer has indulged in unfair labour practice. According to the complainant, he was a technical employee and was dealing in the work of production, planning, control and marketing department of the employer. He was required to follow instructions and directions from the General Manager and Assistant General Manager from time to time. He had no power to sanction leave to the employees and also no power of examining the quality of production work. He had never supervised the work of the staff nor was he given authority to write the confidential report of the employees of the respondents company. On the other hand, the case of the employer is that, at the time of termination of the employee, he was working as Senior Marketing Manager, drawing monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/-. Apart from that, the employee was enjoying perquisites such as company car, specific amount of Rs. 50,000/- for the purchase of appliances, medical benefits, L.T.A. and all other benefits applicable to the senior officers and therefore, the complainant was not a workman. The employer prayed before the Labour Court that the question whether the complainant was workman or not goes to the root of the matter seeking to determine the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and try the complaint and therefore, an issue be framed as a preliminary issue whether the complainant was workman or not before embarking on the merits of the matter.
6. The 6th Labour Court vide its Order dated July 27, 1999 rejected the prayer made by the employer for framing the preliminary issue on the question whether the complainant was workman or not. The 6th Labour Court observed that all issues will be decided together including the issue whether the complainant was workman or not. The order passed by the 6th Labour Court, Mumbai came to be challenged by the employer in revision under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
The Industrial Court vide its order dated November 30, 1999 partly allowed the revision, modified the order passed by the concerned Labour Court and directed the concerned Labour Court to frame all issues including the issue whether the complainant was workman or not and first decide the issue whether the complainant was workman and in case, the finding on that issue in affirmative, proceed with the other issues while on the other hand, if the finding is in the negative, the Labour Court should not decide the remaining issues.
7. So far as direction given by the Industrial Court to the Labour Court that the said Court should frame all issues is concerned, the said direction cannot be faulted and is proper. The further direction given by the Industrial Court to first decide the issue of workman and if the finding on the said issue is in the negative, the Labour Court should not decide the remaining issues, cannot be countenanced and needs to be modified. Piecemeal decision on the issue always results in protracting the litigation and to avoid that it is always advantageous that all issues are decided together. It is true that the question whether the complainant is workman or not is a vital issue but at the same time, the other issues regarding the legality and correctness of the termination of the complainant needs to be gone into by the Labour Court also because even if it is held by the Labour Court that the complainant is not workman, the other issues raised in the complaint are required to be decided because in case the said finding is not upheld ultimately by superior Court, the matter may not be required to be remanded for decision on other issues if the other issues are decided by the Labour Court. The decision of all issues simultaneously shall definitely curtail unnecessary delay in final disposal of the matter. The finding recorded by the Labour Court on the question whether the complainant is workman or not is not final and obviously, therefore, to obviate the necessity of remand at later stage by the superior Court on other issues in case the superior Court does not agree with the Labour Court on its finding on the question whether the complainant is workman or not, it would be desirable that all issues are decided simultaneously including the question whether the complainant is workman or not.
8. Accordingly, the order passed by the Industrial Court on November 30, 1999 is modified by following order:
(i) The concerned Labour Court is directed to frame all issues arising from the pleadings of the parties including the question whether the complainant is workman or not within four weeks from today.
(ii) The Labour Court shall fix the calendar of dates for evidence and hearing of the complaint keeping in view that complaint deserves to be heard by the end of the year 2000.
(iii) All the issues framed by the Labour Court shall be decided simultaneously and not in piecemeal.
No costs. Certified copy expedited.