Bombay High Court
ANITA TUKARAM WADHAWALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The Labour Court must re‑adjudicate the petitioner's status as a workman on its own merits, without being bound by the Industrial Court's order, and must do so within four months.
Summary
The petitioner, Anita Tukaram Wadhawal, challenged an order of the Industrial Court that remanded a Labour Court decision declaring her a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act and ordering her reinstatement with back wages. The Industrial Court had set aside the Labour Court's judgment, alleging it ignored the nature of work performed at the time of termination, and directed a fresh adjudication of her status. The High Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, held that the Labour Court must re‑adjudicate the issue of the petitioner's status on its own merits, without being bound by the Industrial Court's observations, and must do so expeditiously, preferably within four months. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed, and the parties were directed to appear before the Labour Court for further directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the Industrial Court was correct in remanding the Labour Court's finding that the petitioner was a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Whether the Labour Court must re‑adjudicate the petitioner's status independently of the Industrial Court's observations.
- Whether the High Court can direct an expeditious hearing and set a time‑frame for the Labour Court to decide the remanded complaint.
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 2(s)
Subjects
- workman definition
- Industrial Disputes Act
- termination of service
- reinstatement
- writ petition
- Industrial Court
- Labour Court
- status of employee
- expeditious hearing
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:26234
Megha 21_wp_6812_2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6812 OF 2019
Anita Tukaram Wadhawal ...Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Ms. Revati Alhat i/b. Mr. Sushant Walimbe with Mr. Vedang Shirawale for
the Petitioner.
Ms.S.D. Chipade, AGP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Avinash Jalisatgi with Mr. Mulanshu Vora i/v. Mr. Vaibhav Jagdale for
the Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 25 JUNE 2026.
P.C.:
1) By the present Petition, Petitioner has challenged order dated 18
March 2019 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Thane,
partly allowing Revision Application (ULP) No.13 of 2018 and setting
aside judgment and order dated 30 December 2017 passed by the Labour
Court in Complaint (ULP) No.86 of 2012. The Industrial Court has
remanded the complaint of the Labour Court for fresh adjudication of
issue of status of the Petitioner as workman.
Page No.1 of 3
25 June 2026
Megha 21_wp_6812_2019
2) I have heard Ms. Alhat, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, Ms. Chipade, the learned AGP for Respondent No.1-State and
Mr. Jalisatgi, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 4
and have considered the submissions canvassed by them.
3) It appears that the Labour Court had earlier held Petitioner to be
a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 and while holding her termination to be illegal she
was directed to be reinstated in service with full backwages from 22
March 2012. The Respondent-employer Cled revision before the
Industrial Court complaining that the Labour Court has erroneously
taken into consideration the nature of work performed by the Petitioner
on the post on which she was appointed. It was the grouse of the
Respondent that nature of work performed by the Petitioner on the post
occupied at the time of her termination was completely ignored by the
Labour Court. Accepting the contention of the Respondent, the Industrial
Court has remanded the complaint for fresh adjudication of issue of
status of the Petitioner. Though the order of the Industrial Court was
passed on 18 March 2019, on account of pendency of the present Petition
for the last 7 long years, the adjudication of the issue is yet to take place.
It appears that there is stay to the proceedings of the Labour Court
during pendency of the present Petition.
4) Considering the above position, in my view it would be
appropriate that the Labour Court decides the issue of status of the
Petitioner in an expeditious manner.
Page No.2 of 3
25 June 2026
Megha 21_wp_6812_2019
5) Accordingly, the Petition is disposed of by requesting the Labour
Court to decide the remanded complaint as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of four months. The Labour Court shall not be
inFuenced by the observations made by the Industrial Court in the order
dated 18 March 2019 and shall re-adjudicate the issue of status of the
Petitioner on its own merits considering the evidence appearing on
record. It is clariCed that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
6) Parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 6 July 2026
alongwith copy of the present order downloaded from the website of this
Court and seek further directions for Cxation of dates of hearing in the
complaint.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 25 June 2026
Date: 29/06/2026 10:51:32
Checking your session…