Burden to prove employees are 'workmen' under Section 2(s) ID Act lies on complainant-union, not employer denying it; Supreme Court modifies High Court's preliminary issue framing accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are at the instance of Bonatrans India Pvt. Ltd. ¹[employer], which is aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 22nd March, 2022²[impugned order] of a learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. Vide the impugned order, the learned Judge disposed of Writ Petition No. 1109/2021 preferred by the Employees’ Union³[Union] and Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 2839/2020 of the employer.

3. Proceedings before the Industrial Court, Aurangabad under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971⁴[MRTU & PULP Act] was initiated by the Union by lodging a complaint⁵[Complaint (ULP) No 146 of 2019] claiming diverse relief. Prayers, inter alia, included declarations that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practices, that the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated against certain employees by the employer were ultra vires the terms and conditions of employment, etc. The employer had filed an objection vide Exhibit C/8 questioning the status of the employees on whose behalf the complaint had been lodged by the Union. According to the employer, the employees were not workmen within the meaning of ‘workman’ defined by Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947⁶[ID Act] and hence, the complaint was not maintainable. The Industrial Court, however, in the face of opposition raised by the Union, vide its order dated 11th December, 2019, rejected Exhibit C/8 and did not frame any preliminary issue. This triggered the writ petition of the employer before the High Court. On the other hand, the Union applied for interim relief vide Exhibit U/2. The Industrial Court, however, vide its order dated 5th January, 2021, declined to protect the employees from facing the enquiry which had been initiated by the employer. This order formed the subject matter of challenge before the High Court in the Union’s writ petition.

4. The crux of the controversy centres around interpretation of clause (a) of paragraph ‘11’ of the impugned order. We consider it apposite to quote paragraph ‘11’ of the impugned order in its entirety, hereunder. The same reads:

“11. In view of the above, Writ Petition (stamp) No. 2839/2020 is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 11.12.2019 rejecting exhibit C/8 is quashed and set aside and C/8 is allowed to the following extent:-

(a) The following issue shall be framed by the Industrial Court on 31.03.2022:-

Whether, the respondent/employer proves that the employees, for whom the complainant Union is espousing the cause, are covered by the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

(b) For framing the above issue, Complaint (ULP) No.146/2019, which is now posted on 27.06.2022, shall be pre-poned to 31.03.2022.

(c) The Complainant Union will commence the recording of oral and documentary evidence on the above issue and the same would be concluded in between 01.04.2022 to 20.04.2022.

(d) The Management shall conclude the recording of it’s evidence in between 21.04.2022 till 07.05.2022.

(e) Thereafter, the matter would be listed for recording of oral submissions of the parties on 06.06.2022 to be concluded by 10.06.2022.

(f) The learned Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad, is requested to deliver it’s order on the above stated issue, on 30.06.2022.

(g) Until 30.06.2022, the status-quo as existing today shall be maintained.

(h) It is made clear that after the above stated issue is decided, the Industrial Court is at liberty to deal with the complaint as is permissible in law.

(i) The protection granted by this Court on the basis of the