JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Sri Naik advocate waives service for respondents.

2. By consent, rule is heard finally at this stage.

3. This writ petition is by the petitioner who is complainant in Complaint (ULP) No. 301 of 1999 before the Sixth Labour Court at Mumbai. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Court on 30 November, 1999, whereby, the said Court had directed the concerned Labour Court to decide the question whether the complainant is workman or not as a preliminary issue and if the answer is in the negative, the concerned Court is not required to decide the remaining issues. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would occasion in unnecessary protraction of litigation. According to the learned counsel for Petitioner, the procedure suggested by the Industrial Court is not in conformity with the settled law.

4. Sri Naik, learned counsel for the employer, on the other hand, submits that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Industrial Court cannot be said to have erred in passing the order, dated 30 November, 1999.

5. The complainant in the complaint has prayed for declaration that b