The importance of deciding all issues simultaneously to avoid unnecessary delay in the final disposal of the matter.

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 by terminating his services vide termination order, dated 9 March, 1999, the employer has indulged in unfair labour practice. According to the complainant, he was a technical employee and was dealing in the work of production, planning, control and marketing department of the employer. He was required to follow instructions and directions from the General Manager and Assistant General Manager from time to time. He had no power to sanction leave to the employees and also no power of examining the quality of production work. He had never supervised the work of the staff nor was he given authority to write the confidential report of the employees of the respondent's company. On the other hand, the case of the employer is that, at the time of termination of the employee, he was working as Senior Marketing Manager, drawing monthly salary of Rs. 25,000. Apart from that, the employee was enjoying perquisites such as company car, specific amount of Rs. 50,000 for the purchase of appliances, medical benefits, L.T.A. and all other benefits applicable to the senior officers and therefore, the complainant was not a workman. The employer prayed before the Labour Court that the question whether the complainant was workman or not goes to the root of the matter seeking to determine the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and try the complaint and, therefore, an issue be framed as a preliminary issue whether the complainant was workman or not before embarking on the merits of the matter.

6. The Sixth Labour Court vide its order, dated 27 July, 1999, rejected the prayer made by the employer for framing the preliminary issue on the question whether the complainant was workman or not. The Sixth Labour Court observed that all issues will be decided together including the issue whether the complainant was workman or not. The order passed by the Sixth Labour Court, Mumbai, came to be challenged by the employer in revision under S. 44 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The Industrial Court vide its order, dated 30 November, 1999, partly allowed the revision, modified the order passed by the concerned Labour Court and directed the concerned Labour Court to frame all issues including the issue whether the complainant was workman or not and first decide the issue whether the complainant was workman and in case, the finding on that issue is affirmative, proceed with the other issues while on the other hand, if the finding is in the negative, the Labour Court should not decide the remaining issues.

7. So far as direction, given by the Industrial Court to the Labour Court that the said Court should frame all issues is concerned, the said direction cannot be faulted and is proper. The further direction given by the Industrial Court to first decide the issue of workman and if