JUDGMENT - A.V. SAVANT, J.:---Heard both the learned Counsel; Shri Rele for the petitioner employer and Shri S.M. Dharap for respondent No. 1 complainant, who claims to be a workman.

2.The petition is by the employer Union Carbide (India) Limited seeking to challenge the orders dated 22nd October, 1984 (Exh. H) and 29th June, 1990 (Exh. I), both passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mumbai and the order dated 4th October, 1994 (Ex. K) passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the Labour Court. Against the order dated 22nd October, 1984 passed by the Labour Court deciding the preliminary issue that the complaint was maintainable since respondent No. 1 was a "workman", as defined in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "I.D. Act") or an employee as defined in clause (5) of section 3 of M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 (for short the said 1971 Act), the petitioner had filed a writ petition in this Court. It is, however, common ground that the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to challenge the finding that the first respondent was a workman after the final outcome o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document