Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (employer), challenged the judgment and order dated November 13, 2021 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane, which allowed the revision application filed by the respondent employee, Sandeep Sadanand Vanjari. The Industrial Court set aside the Labour Court's order dated September 28, 2017 framing a preliminary issue: 'Does complainant prove his status as an employee under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act?' and directed the Labour Court to frame all issues and lead evidence on those issues. The employee joined the employer as a Junior Engineer on September 16, 1999 and was promoted as Assistant Engineer on October 1, 2010. He applied for study leave to complete his Ph.D. on March 24, 2011, which was granted from April 21, 2011 to April 20, 2013 without pay. The employer sent reminders during 2013-2014 for the employee to report for work, but he did not comply. The employer issued an administrative circular No. 490 dated July 1, 2014 re-designating posts. The employee filed a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act alleging unfair labour practices. The Labour Court framed the preliminary issue. The Industrial Court in revision set aside that order. The High Court held that the Industrial Court did not commit any error in setting aside the preliminary issue as the status of an employee is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Preliminary Issue - Employee Status - MRTU & PULP Act - The employer challenged the Industrial Court's order setting aside the Labour Court's framing of a preliminary issue 'Does complainant prove his status as an employee under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act?' - The Industrial Court directed the Labour Court to frame all issues and lead evidence on all issues - Held that the Industrial Court did not commit any error in setting aside the preliminary issue order as the status of an employee is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be decided as a preliminary issue (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in setting aside the Labour Court's order framing a preliminary issue regarding the employee's status under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated November 13, 2021.
Law Points
- Preliminary issue
- Employee status
- MRTU & PULP Act
- Industrial Court
- Revision
- Labour Court
- Study leave
- Abandonment of service
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (10) 48
Writ Petition No. 8938 of 2022
Mr. P. P. Chavan a/w. Mr. Kiran Gandhi, Mr. Akash Kothari i/b. Little & Co. for the petitioners. Mr. Satyakumar Shettigar a/w. Mr. Ram Mohite for the respondent.
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Industrial Court setting aside the Labour Court's order framing a preliminary issue.
Remedy Sought
The employer (petitioner) sought to quash the Industrial Court's order dated November 13, 2021 and restore the Labour Court's order framing the preliminary issue.
Filing Reason
The employer challenged the Industrial Court's order which set aside the Labour Court's order framing a preliminary issue regarding the employee's status under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court on September 28, 2017 framed a preliminary issue 'Does complainant prove his status as an employee under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act?' The Industrial Court on November 13, 2021 allowed the revision application and set aside that order, directing the Labour Court to frame all issues and lead evidence.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in setting aside the Labour Court's order framing a preliminary issue regarding the employee's status under the MRTU & PULP Act.
Submissions/Arguments
The employer argued that the Industrial Court erred in setting aside the preliminary issue order.
The employee supported the Industrial Court's order.
Ratio Decidendi
The question of whether an employee is an 'employee' under the MRTU & PULP Act is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. The Industrial Court did not commit any error in setting aside the Labour Court's order framing such a preliminary issue.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge of the petitioner (hereafter 'employer' for short) in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the judgment and order dated November 13, 2021 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane.
The Industrial Court thereby set aside the order passed by the Labour Court dated September 28, 2017 below Exhibit 'C-8' framing the preliminary issue 'Does complainant prove his status as an employee under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act?'
The Industrial Court directed the Labour Court to frame all issues and directed the parties to lead evidence on those issues.
Procedural History
The employee filed a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue on September 28, 2017. The employee filed a revision application before the Industrial Court, which allowed it on November 13, 2021, setting aside the preliminary issue order. The employer then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act):
