Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Manganese Ore (I) Ltd., a government company, challenged the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, dated 25-01-2008 in Writ Petition No.3396/2007. The respondent No.1, Mohd. Yunusuddin Sheikh, a workman, had filed the writ petition seeking directions to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) to not proceed with the preliminary objection raised by the employer that the workman was not covered under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman contended that the issue was already decided by the High Court in Writ Petition No.678/2000 and thus could not be reopened. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that the issue was not open for scrutiny in the reference proceedings. The employer appealed. The Division Bench, comprising B.P. Dharmadhikari and Rohit B. Deo, JJ., heard the appeal. The appellant argued that the earlier writ petition challenged the order of reference, not the preliminary issue of workman status, which is a question of fact. The Division Bench agreed, noting that the earlier writ petition was essentially different in nature and content. The court held that the issue of whether respondent No.1 is a workman under Section 2(s) is a question of fact and cannot be barred by res judicata. The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the CGIT was directed to decide the preliminary issue afresh in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Workman Status - Res Judicata - Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The issue of whether a person is a workman under Section 2(s) is a question of fact. The earlier Writ Petition No.678/2000 challenged the order of reference and not the preliminary issue of workman status. Therefore, the Labour Court is not barred from deciding the preliminary issue afresh. The learned Single Judge erred in holding that the issue was not open for scrutiny. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the issue of whether respondent No.1 is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is barred by res judicata or principles analogous thereto in view of the earlier decision in Writ Petition No.678/2000.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 25-01-2008 in Writ Petition No.3396/2007 set aside. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal is directed to decide the preliminary issue of whether respondent No.1 is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 afresh in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Res judicata
- Issue of workman status under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Preliminary objection
- Scope of earlier writ petition
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 235
Letters Patent Appeal No.50 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.3396 of 2007
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Rohit B. Deo
Shri Masood Shareef for appellant, Mrs. Mugdha Chandurkar for respondent No.2
Mohd. Yunusuddin Sheikh, Union of India, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Letters Patent Appeal against judgment of Single Judge in writ petition filed by workman challenging order of Labour Court rejecting application to bar hearing on preliminary issue of workman status.
Remedy Sought
Appellant employer sought setting aside of Single Judge's judgment which held that issue of workman status was not open for scrutiny in reference proceedings.
Filing Reason
Appellant employer assailed judgment dated 25-01-2008 in Writ Petition No.3396/2007 whereby Single Judge allowed workman's petition and held that preliminary issue of workman status was barred by earlier decision in Writ Petition No.678/2000.
Previous Decisions
Writ Petition No.678/2000 was earlier filed by the workman and decided by the High Court. The Labour Court had rejected workman's application dated 07-02-2007 objecting to hearing on preliminary point, which led to Writ Petition No.3396/2007.
Issues
Whether the issue of workman status under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is barred by res judicata in view of the earlier decision in Writ Petition No.678/2000.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that earlier Writ Petition No.678/2000 was essentially different in nature and content, challenging the order of reference, not the preliminary issue of workman status.
Respondent workman contended that the issue was already decided by the High Court in Writ Petition No.678/2000 and could not be reopened.
Ratio Decidendi
The issue of whether a person is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a question of fact. The earlier writ petition challenging the order of reference does not bar the Labour Court from deciding the preliminary issue of workman status afresh, as the nature and content of the challenge were different.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant/employer assails judgment dated 25012008 delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3396/2001 filed by respondent No.1 workman.
Learned Single Judge heard respective parties and then came to conclusion that issue was not open for scrutiny in reference proceedings before the Labour Court.
Learned Advocate Shri Masood Shareef appearing for appellant submits that challenge in earlier Writ Petition No.678/2000 was essentially different in nature and content as compared to challenge in Writ Petition No.3396/2007.
Procedural History
The workman filed Writ Petition No.3396/2007 challenging the Labour Court's order dated 07-02-2007 rejecting his application to bar hearing on preliminary issue. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 25-01-2008. The employer filed Letters Patent Appeal No.50 of 2008 against that judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 2(s)
