Bombay High Court Bars Preliminary Decision on Workman Status; Orders All Remaining Labour Issues Tried Together to Avoid Further Delay in 2013 Dispute
Bombay High Court Orders Workman Status and Remaining Labour Issues Tried Together; Says Piecemeal Adjudication Would Further Delay 13-Year-Old Complaint
Facts
The petitioner, Aniruddh Kumar Dhaniram Upadhyay, was initially appointed as a Technician with Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. According to the employer, he was later promoted as Senior Technician and thereafter as Engineer.
A charge-sheet dated 17 October 2012 was issued against him and a disciplinary enquiry followed. He was ultimately dismissed from service on 12 September 2013. He challenged the dismissal by filing Complaint (ULP) No.128 of 2013 before the Labour Court, Thane.
While framing issues in April 2016, the Labour Court initially directed that three questions be tried as preliminary issues: whether the petitioner was a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act; whether the enquiry violated natural justice; and whether the Enquiry Officer’s findings were perverse.
The petitioner later applied for modification of that arrangement. By order dated 29 February 2020, the Labour Court directed that only the enquiry-fairness and perversity issues would be decided preliminarily, while the question whether he was a workman would be decided together with the remaining issues.
The employer challenged this before the Industrial Court.
Meanwhile, on 22 February 2021, the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and that the Enquiry Officer’s findings were perverse.
By order dated 3 May 2023, the Industrial Court reversed the Labour Court’s 2020 order and directed that the petitioner’s status as a workman must first be decided as a preliminary issue.
The employee therefore approached the Bombay High Court.
Issues
The central issue was whether the question whether an employee is a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 must or may be decided as a preliminary issue, or whether it should ordinarily be decided together with all remaining issues to avoid fragmented adjudication.
A connected issue was whether the Industrial Court correctly treated workman status as a jurisdictional issue that necessarily required prior determination.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Industrial Court had wrongly reversed the Labour Court’s order.
He relied principally on the Supreme Court’s decision in D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration, contending that labour disputes should not be adjudicated piecemeal and that preliminary issues should ordinarily be avoided because they invite repeated challenges before superior courts and cause serious delay.
He further relied on Bombay High Court decisions in Hind Kamgar Sanghatana and Sadguru Daskishan Sai Baba Mandal, where the issue of workman status was held capable of being decided together with the other issues.
According to the petitioner, the Industrial Court’s approach would prolong a dispute already pending since 2013.
Respondent’s Arguments
The employer argued that the Labour Court itself had originally directed in 2016 that workman status be tried preliminarily and should not subsequently have changed that arrangement.
It contended that there was no absolute rule prohibiting a Labour Court from deciding workman status as a preliminary issue.
Reliance was placed on V.G. Jagdishan v. Indofos Industries Ltd., H.S. Rawat v. Voltas Ltd., Sarika Hemchand Pradhan v. Deccan Gymkhana, and Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ajit Singh.
The employer submitted that since Labour Court jurisdiction depended upon whether the employee answered the definition of “workman”, that jurisdictional issue should logically be decided first.
Analysis of the Law
D.P. Maheshwari Governs the General Rule
The High Court held that the Industrial Court’s reasoning was contrary to the principle laid down in D.P. Maheshwari.
That judgment discourages piecemeal industrial adjudication because repeated preliminary orders generate successive writ petitions and appeals, thereby delaying the substantive dispute.
The Supreme Court had emphasised that labour tribunals should ordinarily decide all issues together, unless separate threshold adjudication is genuinely necessary.
The High Court found that the present case illustrated precisely the problem identified in D.P. Maheshwari: the complaint had remained pending for approximately 13 years, while only preliminary issues had been decided.
Workman Status Is Not Automatically a Preliminary Issue
The Court rejected the Industrial Court’s proposition that whenever the issue of enquiry validity arises alongside a jurisdictional question such as workman status, the jurisdictional issue must necessarily be decided first.
The High Court expressly held that no such universal rule exists.
Although workman status affects the Labour Court’s jurisdiction, that fact does not by itself require separate preliminary adjudication.
The normal rule remains simultaneous adjudication of all issues, especially where separate determination would generate delay.
Territorial Jurisdiction Distinguished
The employer relied on V.G. Jagdishan, where the Supreme Court recognised that territorial jurisdiction may, in an appropriate case, be decided preliminarily.
The Bombay High Court distinguished that authority.
It held that V.G. Jagdishan concerned territorial jurisdiction, not the factual and evidentiary question whether an employee falls within Section 2(s).
Therefore, the judgment did not support the proposition that workman status must be separately decided at the threshold.
Workman Status Requires Evidence
The Court also considered Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills.
That decision recognises that whether an employee is a workman is jurisdictional in nature, but also states that the question requires consideration of evidence and all relevant aspects.
The Bombay High Court clarified that Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills does not hold that workman status must be tried as a preliminary issue.
It merely recognises that a finding on workman status is open to judicial review because it impacts jurisdiction.
Precedent Analysis
D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration
This was the principal authority.
The Supreme Court strongly discouraged fragmented decision-making in industrial disputes and warned against preliminary objections being used to delay adjudication on merits.
The Bombay High Court applied that principle directly and held that the Industrial Court had departed from settled law.
Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement
The Supreme Court reiterated that the normal rule is to decide all issues together.
Even under the CPC, mixed questions of law and fact should ordinarily not be separated as preliminary issues because doing so may result in remand and repeated proceedings.
Hind Kamgar Sanghatana v. L.G. Electronics
A coordinate Bench of the Bombay High Court had already applied D.P. Maheshwari and Ramesh Chandra Sankla to hold that an employee’s status as a workman should be decided along with the other issues.
The Court considered that precedent directly applicable.
Sadguru Daskishan Sai Baba Mandal v. Vaishali More
The Court referred to its own earlier judgment, where it had held that workman status should not be determined piecemeal because an adverse preliminary determination would likely travel through successive appellate forums and delay adjudication of the dismissal dispute.
That reasoning was followed in the present case.
V.G. Jagdishan v. Indofos Industries Ltd.
The employer relied upon this case to argue that jurisdictional issues may be decided preliminarily.
The Court distinguished it because it dealt with territorial jurisdiction, a materially different threshold issue.
Sarika Hemchand Pradhan v. Deccan Gymkhana
This decision was also distinguished.
In that case, the employee had acquiesced in the preliminary trial of workman status, participated fully, invited a decision and challenged the procedure only after losing.
The Court explained that Sarika Hemchand Pradhan was therefore fact-specific and did not lay down a general principle permitting preliminary workman-status adjudication in every case.
H.S. Rawat v. Voltas Ltd.
This case was likewise confined to its facts because the preliminary issue had been accepted and acted upon, and the employee had himself contributed to delay.
The High Court held that it could not be read as establishing a general rule favouring preliminary determination of workman status.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the Industrial Court had mechanically assumed that a jurisdictional issue must always be tried first.
That approach ignored the broader purpose of industrial adjudication: speedy and effective resolution of employment disputes.
The complaint had been pending since 2013, and thirteen years had passed without final resolution. The only substantive progress was the 2021 Part-I order on enquiry fairness and perversity.
The High Court concluded that requiring another preliminary trial on workman status would invite yet another round of challenges and delay the dismissal dispute even further.
Accordingly, the petitioner’s workman status had to be decided together with the remaining issues.
The employer would meanwhile be permitted to lead evidence to justify its dismissal action.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Industrial Court’s order dated 3 May 2023.
The Labour Court was directed to decide Issue No.1 concerning the petitioner’s status as a workman together with Issues Nos.4 to 7, rather than as a separate preliminary issue.
The employer was granted liberty to challenge the Labour Court’s Part-I order dated 22 February 2021, which had held the enquiry unfair and the findings perverse, only if the final judgment in the complaint ultimately goes against the employer.
All merits were kept open. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case: Shri Aniruddh Kumar Dhaniram Upadhyay v. M/s Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Writ Petition No.873 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:35192
Judge: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Reserved On: 13 August 2026
Date: 27 August 2026
Impugned Order: Industrial Court, Thane order dated 3 May 2023 in Revision (ULP) No.18 of 2021.
Underlying Proceeding: Complaint (ULP) No.128 of 2013 before the Labour Court, Thane.
Key Issue: Whether status as a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act should be decided as a preliminary issue.
Result: Writ Petition allowed. Industrial Court order set aside. Workman-status issue directed to be decided along with the remaining issues; employer’s challenge to the 2021 Part-I enquiry order deferred until final disposal, if necessary. No costs.
