Judgment:
Nishita Mhatre, J.
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 III LLJ (Supp) 774 (Bom), as also on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration : (1983)IILLJ425SC . 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 II 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)ILLJ448Bom . 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
1. ...There was a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy to decide preliminary issues first. But the time appears to have arrived for a reversal of that policy. We think it is better that tribunals, particularly those entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where delay may lead to misery and jeopardise industrial peace, should decide all issues in dispute at the same time without trying some of them as preliminary issues. Nor should High Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution stop proceedings before a Tribunal so that a preliminary issue may be decided by them. Neither the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution nor the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 may be allowed to be exploited by those who can well afford to wait to the detriment of those who can ill afford to wait by dragging the latter from Court to Court for adjudication of peripheral issues, avoiding decision on issues more vital to them. Article 226 and Article 136 are not meant to be used to break the resistance of workmen in this fashion. Tribunals and Courts who are requested to decide preliminary questions must therefore ask themselves whether such threshold part adjudication is really necessary and whether it will not lead to other woeful consequences. After all tribunals like Industrial Tribunals are constituted to decide expeditiously special kinds of disputes and their jurisdiction to so' decide is not to be stifled by all manner of preliminary objections and journey up and down. It is also worthwhile remembering that the nature of the jurisdiction under, Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate while that under Article 136 is primarily supervisory but the Court may exercise all necessary appellate powers to do substantial justice. In the exercise of such jurisdiction neither the High Court nor this Court is required to be too astute to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by special tribunals at interlocutory stages and on preliminary issues.
4. In the case of R.B. Gundewar v. Crompton Greaves (supra) the learned Single Judge of this Court has observed thus at p. 776 of : (2000)IIILLJ774Bom
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 issues 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.
5. A similar view has been taken by the learned Single Judge of the Gujrath High Court in Sarabhai M. Chemicals Ltd. v. Rajnikant V. Shah (supra). In my view, this has been the consistent practice which ought to have been adopted by the Labour Court in the present case as well. In the case H.S. Rawat v. Voltas Ltd. (supra), the learned Single Judge has concluded that hearing of all issues together in labour matters is not an inflexible rule. However, these observations have been made in the facts and circumstances arising in that case. It appears that, in that case the Labour Court had passed an order dated November 19, 1998 that it would hear the issue as to whether the petitioner is a workman, as a preliminary issue. The petitioner did not challenge that order and the parties acted on the same. It was only when the petitioner was required to lead evidence in rebuttal that he applied that all issues should be decided together. Apart from that, the order of the Labour Court dated November 19, 1998 directing that only preliminary issues would be decided was not challenged in the writ petition. In view of this, it was held that there was lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner and the Labour Court was entitled to consider his conduct while coming to the conclusion whether one issue should be heard as a preliminary issue.
6. It is true that the rule that the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal should hear all issues-together is not immutable. However, the rule has been adopted as a matter of prudence in order to obviate dilatory tactics which may be adopted by the parties. Procrastination would not benefit either party and certainly not the workman. It must be borne in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to resolve disputes between employees and their workmen expeditiously. Procedure which is contrary to this avowed object should be eschewed as far as possible. The Apex Court in D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration, (supra) case has in 1983 observed that labour disputes must be resolved with alacrity in order to promote industrial peace. A decision on all issues together from the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is a step in that direction.
7. The next submission of the learned advocate for the respondent Company that the evidence would be led on all issues and only one issue should be decided, is unsustainable in view of the fact that it is necessary to expedite labour matters as observed in the case of R.B. Gundewar v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. (supra). The finding recorded by the Labour Court as to whether a person is a workman or not, is not final. The superior Court, if it finds that the finding recorded is incorrect, would have to remand the matter to the Labour Court at a later stage, whereas if all the issues are decided together, the possibility of a remand could be a obviated if the Superior Court finds that the conclusion of the Labour Court that the person is not a workman is erroneous.
8. In my view, therefore, the petitioner is Justified in his submission that all issues, including the issue whether he is a workman, must be decided together. The order of the Labour Court is set aside. The Labour Court is directed to frame all the issues together and decide the reference by permitting parties to lead evidence on all issues. The Court shall answer all issues together.
9. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.