Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Taj SATS Air Catering, Goa Unit, challenged an order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Goa, which held that Respondent no.1, an employee, is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the employee was not a workman. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the impugned order was interlocutory and that the Tribunal's finding on the workman status was based on evidence and not perverse. The court declined to interfere under Article 226/227, holding that the issue of jurisdiction was not patent and could be raised later. The petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal was directed to proceed with the remaining issues.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Definition of Workman - Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The court examined whether the employee was a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act, considering the nature of his duties and supervisory functions. The Tribunal had held that the employee was a workman, and the High Court found no perversity or jurisdictional error in that finding. (Paras 1-5)
B) Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Interlocutory Orders - Article 226/227 of Constitution of India - The court held that the impugned order being interlocutory in nature, the High Court would not interfere unless there is a patent lack of jurisdiction or perversity. Since the issue of workman status was a mixed question of fact and law, the Tribunal's finding was not interfered with. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court erred in holding that Respondent no.1 is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned order is interlocutory and does not suffer from any patent lack of jurisdiction or perversity. The Tribunal is directed to proceed with the remaining issues in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Definition of workman under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Jurisdictional challenge to Industrial Tribunal's order
- Interference with interlocutory orders under Article 226/227
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (01) 86
WRIT PETITION NO. 304 OF 2019
Mr. G. K. Sardessai with Ms. S. Bangera for Petitioner; Mr. Bhargav Khandeparkar for Respondent no.1
M/s. Taj SATS Air Catering, Goa Unit
Mr. Mankayil Poulose Jose and Hon'ble Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Goa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an interlocutory order of the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court holding that the employee is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (Management) sought to quash the order dated 25.10.2018 and to hold that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended that Respondent no.1 is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore the Tribunal could not have exercised jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court passed an order on 25.10.2018 holding that Respondent no.1 is a workman and that charges of misconduct were not proved. The issues of reinstatement and back wages are yet to be decided.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court erred in holding that Respondent no.1 is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Whether the impugned order suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Tribunal could not have exercised jurisdiction because Respondent no.1 is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Respondent no.1 supported the Tribunal's finding and submitted that the petition is premature as the matter is still pending before the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi
The finding of the Industrial Tribunal on the status of an employee as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a mixed question of fact and law. Unless the finding is perverse or the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction, the High Court will not interfere with an interlocutory order under Article 226/227.
Judgment Excerpts
The issue raised on behalf of the Petitioner goes to the very root of the matter.
The impugned order is interlocutory in nature and the Tribunal is yet to decide the remaining issues.
Procedural History
The Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court passed an order on 25.10.2018 on an application under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, holding that Respondent no.1 is a workman. The Petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The High Court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on 04.01.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 2(s), 2-A(2)
