JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. By the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, correctness, validity, and propriety of the impugned Judgment and Order dated 25 July 2017 passed by the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 69 of 2017, whereby the Revision Application preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected and the Judgment and Order dated 29 May 2017 passed by the First Labour Court, Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 281 of 2004 came to be confirmed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition, as pleaded and set out by the petitioner, may briefly be stated thus. The petitioner Company was having two separate manufacturing units at Thane. One of the units, namely the Meter Division, was situated at Plot No. A-279, Road No. 16-A, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane. Apart from the said unit, the petitioner Company was also operating another Meter Division at Lonavala since the year 1960. According to the petitioner, the Meter Division situated at Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane was permanently and irrevocably closed with effect from 24 May 2008 pursuant to the notice dated 21 March 2008 issued in that behalf. The respondent initially joined the services of the petitioner Company as a worker and, from time to time, came to be promoted to higher posts. It is the case of the petitioner that with effect from 01 March 2004, the respondent was promoted to the post of Commercial Officer in the managerial cadre. According to the petitioner, the respondent failed to discharge his duties efficiently and satisfactorily while functioning as a Commercial Officer. It is alleged that meters were wrongly dispatched to customers and several complaints were received from customers regarding deficient and unsatisfactory services rendered by the respondent. The petitioner contends that continuation of the respondent in service was detrimental to the interest of the Company and that the Management had lost confidence in the respondent. In the aforesaid circumstances, the services of the respondent came to be terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions governing his employment by way of simpliciter termination. The respondent, being aggrieved thereby, instituted a Complaint alleging commission of unfair labour practices under Item Nos. 1(a), (b), (d), and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, along with an application seeking interim relief. According to the petitioner, the decision to terminate the services of the respondent was taken strictly in accordance with the contractual terms governing his employment.

3. Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence placed before it, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the respondent did not fall within the definition of “employee” under Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act and further held that the respondent had failed to establish the allegations levelled in the Complaint. Consequently, the Complaint came to be dismissed. Being dissatisfied with the said Judgment and Order, the respondent preferred Revision Application (ULP) No. 50 of 2009 before the Industrial Court. The principal contention advanced by the respondent in the said Revision Application was that he squarely fell within the ambit of the expression “employee” as defined under Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act and that the Labour Court had committed an error in dismissing the Complaint by holding that he was not an employee within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Court, by allowing the Revision Application, set aside the finding recorded by the Labour Court in its Order dated 06 June 2011 to the effect that the complainant was not an employee under Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act. Thereafter, the Complaint was restored to the file of the Labour Court for adjudication of the remaining iss