The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to decide all issues together in labour matters to prevent undue delay in the adjudication of the real dispute.

JUDGMENT :

1. The challenge of the petitioner (hereafter ‘employer’ for short) in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the judgment and order dated November 13, 2021 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane. By this order, the revision application filed by the respondent (hereafter ‘the employee’ for short) was allowed. The Industrial Court thereby set aside the order passed by the Labour Court dated September 28, 2017 below Exhibit ‘C-8’ framing the preliminary issue “Does complainant prove his status as an employee under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act?” The Industrial Court directed the Labour Court to frame all issues and directed the parties to lead evidence on those issues.

2. The brief facts which need to be stated are thus. The employee joined the services of the employer as a Junior Engineer on September 16, 1999. The employee was promoted as an Assistant Engineer on October 1, 2010. The employee applied for study leave in order to complete his Ph.D. course on March 24, 2011. The employer granted the study leave with effect from April 21, 2011 to April 20, 2013 without pay and allowance subject to terms and conditions enumerated in the Leave Sanction order dated May 16, 2011. The employer sent various reminders during the period 2013-2014 to the employee to report for work. The employee did not report for work despite receiving the communications.

3. The employer issued the administrative circular No. 490 dated July 1, 2014 whereby various posts were redesignated. The employee was then holding the post of Assistant Engineer which was re-designated as Deputy Executive Engineer. Between January to March 2015 various letters came to be addressed by the employer to the employee to report back for work. A show cause notice dated April 22, 2015 came to be issued calling upon the employee to submit an explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for continuous absence. The employee submitted his reply dated May 20, 2015 and requested his case be referred to the Civil Surgeon for medical examination.

4. A chargesheet dated July 14, 2015 was issued against the employee for absenteeism. The employee filed his reply dated September 1, 2015 to the chargesheet. The charges were denied. The employer was not satisfied with the reply to the chargesheet and therefore, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the employee on September 29, 2015. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings and report dated October 12, 2015, thereby holding that the employee guilty of the charges levelled against him. A final show cause notice dated October 15, 2015 came to be issued along with the report and the findings of the Enquiry Officer asking the employee to submit his explanation. The employee by his response dated October 26, 2015 replied to the show cause notice. The employee simultaneously filed Complaint (ULP) No. 121 of 2015 before the Labour Court, Thane, seeking to quash the chargesheet and the show cause notice.

5. The Labour Court passed an interim order on October 27, 2015 directing the parties to maintain status-quo. The employer filed reply-cum-written statement to the complaint on November 3, 2015 objecting to its maintainability. According to the employer, the post on which the employee was working was of managerial/administrative/supervisory in nature and therefore, the employee was not covered by the definition of “workman” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter ‘ID Act’ for short), consequently cannot be regarded as an “employee” within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereafter ‘the MRTU & PULP Act’ for short).

6. The employer filed an application Exhibit ‘C-8’ on March 7, 2017 praying that the preliminary issue be framed as to the status of the employee. By the order dated September 28, 2017, the Labour Court