Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 27 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Aniruddh Kumar Dhaniram Upadhyay; Respondent: M/s. Emeresons Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd.
  • Petition (Writ Petition No.873 of 2024) challenged the Industrial Court, Thane order dated 3 May 2023 (Revision ULP No. 18 of 2021) which had directed the Labour Court to treat the petitioner’s status as a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as a preliminary issue.
  • The Industrial Court had also set aside the Labour Court’s 29 Feb 2020 order and remanded the matter, directing that the work‑man issue be decided first as a preliminary issue, with a hearing scheduled for 28‑06‑2023.
  • Counsel for the petitioner argued that Supreme Court judgment in D.P. Maheshwari (2020) bars piecemeal adjudication of the work‑man issue, citing Hind Kamgar Sanghatana and other precedents.
  • Counsel for the respondent contended that the Labour Court’s earlier 20 April 2016 direction to treat the work‑man issue as preliminary was valid and that the Industrial Court was correct to revert to that approach, relying on V.G. Jagdishan and other cases.

Court’s Reasoning

  • The Court held that the Industrial Court’s finding that the work‑man issue must be decided as a preliminary matter conflicts with the settled law of the Supreme Court in D.P. Maheshwari, which requires all issues to be tried together to avoid delay and protect industrial peace.
  • The Court noted that treating the status issue as preliminary would further protract a complaint pending since 2013, contrary to the purpose of expeditious industrial adjudication.
  • The Court rejected the respondent’s reliance on V.G. Jagdishan, observing that that case dealt with territorial jurisdiction, not the status of a work‑man.
  • The Court also distinguished the factual matrix of Sarika Hemchand Pradhan, emphasizing that the petitioner in the present case had not previously consented to a preliminary determination of status.

Final Outcome

  • The order dated 3 May 2023 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane, is set aside.
  • The Thane Labour Court shall decide Issue 1 (whether the petitioner is a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act) together with Issues 4‑7 of Complaint ULP No. 128 / 2013.
  • The respondent employer is at liberty to challenge the Part‑I order dated 22 Feb 2021 after the final Labour Court judgment.
  • All other contentions are kept open; no order as to costs.

Topics: Industrial Disputes, Workman Status, Judicial Review