( 1 ) THE petitioner is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and has as its members around 800 monthly rated workers employed in the respondent Company's factories at Kalwe and Kurla, Mumbai.

( 2 ) DURING the period 4/08/2000 to 21/11/2000 the Company terminated the services of 20 monthly rated workers. The petitioner raised a dispute against the termination of the said 20 workers and by its order dated 10/02/2001 the Government referred the said dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, mumbai, (for short, "the Tribunal") being reference (IT) No. 20 of 2001. The order of reference reads as under:-

i) The workmen whose names are mentioned below should be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service, with effect from their dates of termination.

ii) The services of the monthly rated workmen covered by Reference (IT) No. 3 of 1993 shall not be terminated without following due process of law.

( 3 ) ON 4/6/2001 the petitioner filed its statement of Claim alongwith an interim relief application in the said Reference (IT) No. 20 of 2001. On 27/6/2001 the Company filed its Affidavit for opposing the interim relief application preferred by the petitioner. The said Affidavit dated 27/6/2001 has been subsequently adopted by the Company as its written Statement in Reference (IT) No. 20 of 2001. The Company has opposed the said reference (IT) No. 20 of 2001 on the ground that the workers concerned in the said reference are not workman as defined under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "id ACT" ).

( 4 ) ON 24/07/2003 the petitioners submitted draft Issues in Reference (IT) No. 20 of 2001. The first issue raised by the petitioner was whether the Company proves that the workman concerned in Reference (IT) No. 20 of 2001 are not workman as defined under section 2 (s) of ID Act.

( 5 ) ON 17/09/2003 the Company submitted Draft Issues in Reference (IT) No. 20 of 2001. The first issue raised by the company was whether the petitioners prove that the persons concerned in the Reference are workman as defined under section 2 (s) of the ID Act. The Company submitted that the said issue be tried as a preliminary issue.

( 6 ) BY its order dated 26/09/2003 in Reference (IT)No. 20 of 2001 the Industrial Tribunal rejected the Draft Issues submitted by the petitioner and accepted the Draft Issues submitted by the Company. In the said order dated 26/09/2003 the Industrial Tribunal has held that it is for the petitioner to prove that the workers concerned in Reference (IT) No. 20 of 2001 are workman as defined under section 2 (s) of the ID Act. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for challenging the said order dated 26/09/2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 20 of 2001.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner basically has relied on the following judgments: -1. (Seth Jeejeebhoy Dadabhoy Chanty Funds and 3 others Vs. Forokh Noshir Dadachanji), 2005 (III) L. L. J. 716. 2. (The President, Anantha Manila Ashram, kolhapurvs. Smt. J. G. Ajagaonkar), 1996 (4)Bom. C. R. 480 : 1996 (74) F. L. R. 2415. 3. (Woman Ganpat Raut Vs. Cadbury-Fry (India) (Private) Ltd. and another), 1980 (I) L. L. N. 488. 4. (Rallis India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and others), 1983 (II) L. L. J. 293. 5. (Shankarbhai Nathalal Prajapati Vs. Maize products), 2002 (III) C. L. R. 919. 6. (Management of Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Lakshmiah and another), 2002 (93) F. L. R. 226.

( 8 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have relied on the judgments of:-1. (Mukand Ltd. Vs. Mukand Staff and Officers' association), 2004 B. C. I. (S. C.)233 : 2004 (II)L. L. J. 327, (Supreme Court ). 2. (V. N. S. Engineering and Services Company Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Goa, Daman and Diu and another), 1987 (II) L. L. N. 968 (Bombay ). 3. (Northcote Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd. , Bombay and Anr, Vs. Zarine H. Rahina (Dr.) (Mrs.) and anr.), 2001 (Supp.) Bom. C. R. (O. O. C. J.) 619 : 2001 (