Bombay High Court

ANIL RAHIversusM/S. D. B. CORPORATION LTD.

Decided: 27 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: MANISH PITALE

Holding

The Labour Court did not err in allowing the application as the pure question of law arising from the Division Bench judgment was subsumed within the already recast preliminary issues.

Summary

Anil Rahi filed a writ petition challenging a First Labour Court order that allowed the employer to raise certain preliminary issues after the issues had already been recast on 04.03.2022. The petitioner argued that the Labour Court erred because the recast issues already covered jurisdiction and the employer’s application was based on a later Division Bench judgment striking down a 2016 notification. The High Court examined whether the Division Bench judgment created a pure question of law that could be subsumed within the already framed preliminary issues. It held that the judgment indeed raised a pure question of law concerning the maintainability of the reference, which was already captured by the recast issues, and therefore the Labour Court did not commit any error. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as there was no stay on the Division Bench judgment and no need to keep the petition pending.

Issues considered

Whether the Labour Court erred in allowing the employer to raise preliminary issues after the issues were recast on 04.03.2022.
Whether the Division Bench judgment striking down the 11/5/2016 notification raises a pure question of law that must be treated as a separate preliminary issue.
Whether the writ petition should be entertained pending a Supreme Court decision on the same question.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 2(s)

Subjects

Labour Court
preliminary issues
jurisdiction
maintainability
Industrial Disputes Act
delegation of power
notification
pure question of law
writ petition
dismissal

Judgment

WP10476_25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10476 OF 2025

Anil Rahi … Petitioner
Vs.
M/s. D. B. Corporation Limited and another … Respondents

Mr. Vishal Krishna i/b. Law Care for Petitioner.
Mr. Vishwabhushan Kamble a/w. Mr. Siddharth Ingule and Ms. Aparna Dudul i/b.
Jayakar & Partner for Respondent No.1.
Mr V. R. Raje, AGP for Respondent-State.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : JULY 27, 2026

P.C. :

. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged an order dated
10.01.2025 passed by the First Labour Court, Mumbai, whereby an
application (exhibit-C7) filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 employer
has been allowed and it is observed that issue Nos.1 and 2 recast on
04.03.2022 shall be treated and heard as preliminary issues.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an
obvious error in the impugned order inasmuch as the issues that were re-
casted on 04.03.2022, pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court
to entertain the Reference, questioning the very maintainability of the
Reference, were based on a stand taken in the written statement on
behalf of the respondent No.1 on the question as to whether the
petitioner could be said to be a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

MINAL Digitally signed
by MINAL
SANDIP SANDIP PARAB
Date: 2026.07.28 4. It is submitted that subsequently, on a judgement being rendered
PARAB 10:55:58 +0530

1/5
WP10476_25.doc

by a Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur Bench on 17.11.2022 in
Writ Petition No.6402 of 2019 (All India Reporter Private Limited Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others), the respondent No.1 filed the
aforesaid application at exhibit C-7, seeking to raise preliminary issues
on a question of law concerning jurisdiction. On the basis of the
aforesaid judgement of the Division Bench of this Court, it was claimed
that since a pure question of law arose in the matter, the application
ought to be allowed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the
impugned order, the Labour Court has erred in allowing the application
by directing that the aforesaid issue arising from the judgement of the
Division Bench of this Court would be treated as a preliminary issue in
terms of the re-casted issues dated 04.03.2022. It is submitted that in the
absence of any pleadings to that effect and when the Labour Court was
clear as to what was the basis for re-casting the issues on 04.03.2022
with regard to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the
Reference, there was no propriety in effectively permitting the
respondent No.1 to raise the aforesaid issue on the basis of the
judgement of the Division Bench of this Court, in the issues already re-
casted on 04.03.2022.

6. It was further submitted that in any case, special leave petitions
arising out of judgements of this Court and other High Courts have been
taken up for consideration by the Supreme Court on the said issue and
recently, the judgement is reserved. It is submitted that in that light, this
Court may either allow the present writ petition or await decision of the
Supreme Court in the matter.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1 submits that the impugned order is justified because a pure legal
objection has been considered in the light of the aforesaid judgement of

2/5
WP10476_25.doc

the Division Bench of this Court in the case of All India Reporter
Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), and
therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order is based on any
erroneous understanding of the effect of the re-casted issues dated
04.03.2022. It was submitted that since the judgement of the Division
Bench of this Court is binding on the Labour Court, there was no other
option for the Labour Court but to allow the application (exhibit-C7)
filed by the respondent No.1.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court
finds that on 04.03.2022, the issues were re-casted and issue Nos.1 and 2
pertained to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the
Reference and consequently, the question as to whether the Reference
itself is maintainable. The said issues appear to have been framed on the
basis of the aforesaid objection taken in the written statement on behalf
of the respondent No.1 that the petitioner does not qualify to be treated
as a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the aforesaid Act. It is an admitted
position that when the said issues were re-casted on 04.03.2022, the
aforementioned judgement of the Division Bench was yet to be
pronounced.

9. Thereafter on 17.11.2022, the Division Bench of this Court passed
judgement in the case of All India Reporter Private Limited Vs. State
of Maharashtra and others (supra). In paragraph 11 thereof, it was
held as under:-
“11] Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, it is held that the
notification dated 11/5/2016 issued by the State Government
delegating its power under Section 17(2) of the Act of 1955 to
the Additional Commissioner of Labour to make a Reference to
the Labour Court does not have any statutory support. There is
no power conferred on the State Government to delegate the
power conferred upon it to refer any dispute to the Labour
Court for determining whether any amount is due to the
members of the Union under the Act of 1955. Consequently,

3/5
WP10476_25.doc

the notification dated 11/5/2016 is struck down as having been
issued without there being any power conferred on the State
Government in that regard under Section 17(2) of the Act of
1955. Consequently, the order dated 8/8/2019 passed below
Exh.11 in Reference (IDA) No. 10/2018 is also set aside and it
is declared that the said Reference is not maintainable before
the Labour Court in view of the notification dated 11/5/2016
being struck down. The Union is free to agitate its claim in
accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court has not
examined the claim on merits and all questions in that regard
are kept open.”

10. It is in this backdrop that the respondent No.1 filed the application
at exhibit-C7 praying for preliminary issue being framed in the light of
the Division Bench of this Court striking down the notification dated
11.05.2016, having the effect of giving rise to a question of law with
regard to the very maintainability of the Reference.

11. This Court finds that the position of law laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in the above-quoted paragraph 11 of the
judgement in the case of All India Reporter Private Limited Vs. State
of Maharashtra and others (supra) undoubtedly goes to the very root
of the matter. It gives rise to a pure question of law and legal objection
as noticed in paragraph 9 of the impugned order passed by the Labour
Court. The preliminary issues with regard to the very maintainability of
the Reference stood already framed as per the re-casted issues dated
04.03.2022. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the Labour Court
committed any error in allowing the application filed by the respondent
No.1. In a face of a pure question of law arising out of a binding
judgement of the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner can be said
to be taking a hyper-technical approach in the matter to raise an
objection to the impugned order. It is an admitted position that the
judgement of the Division Bench in the case of All India Reporter
Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) was
pronounced after the issues were re-casted on 04.03.2022. But, the

4/5
WP10476_25.doc

question of law arising from the said judgement goes to the root of the
matter and can be said to be subsumed in the preliminary issues at
Sr.Nos.1 and 2 re-casted on 04.03.2022. Hence, it cannot be said that the
Labour Court committed an error in passing the impugned order dated
10.01.2025.

11. It is an admitted position that there is no stay to the said
judgement and order of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
All India Reporter Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others (supra). Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would not
be necessary to keep this writ petition pending in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.

12. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.

13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

Minal Parab

5/5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…