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 2026:BHC-AS:26234 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.] Page No. 3 of 3 25 June 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 29/06/2026 10:51:32