CWP-15459 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 109 M/S ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, CORAM: HON'BLE Present: KIRTI SINGH 1. has been filed for quashing of order dated 16.07.2024 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bathinda, in Reference No. 25 of 2019, whereby the application filed by the pe management for reframing of issues has been dismissed. 2. the petitioner as Territory Business Manager, Acute Care Division, Ferozepur, vide offer not later than 20.06.2011, and was, as per the record, subsequently redesignated, with effect from June, 2017, as Senior Territory Business Manager. It is the petitioner’s case that respondent No.2, while so employed, committed gra 15459-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15459 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 M/S ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, BATHINDA AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Saurabh Munjal, Advocate for Mr. Gurmej Singh, Advocate and Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of order dated 16.07.2024 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bathinda, in Reference No. 25 of 2019, whereby the application filed by the pe management for reframing of issues has been dismissed. As per the pleaded facts, Respondent No.2 was appointed with the petitioner as Territory Business Manager, Acute Care Division, Ferozepur, vide offer-cum-appointment letter dated not later than 20.06.2011, and was, as per the record, subsequently redesignated, with effect from June, 2017, as Senior Territory Business Manager. It is the petitioner’s case that respondent No.2, while so employed, committed grave misconduct by repeatedly submitting false field reports of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15459 of 2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 M/S ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ......Petitioner Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR BATHINDA AND ANOTHER .....Respondents MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Saurabh Munjal, Advocate for Mr. Gurmej Singh, Advocate and Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate, for the petitioner. er Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of order dated 16.07.2024 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bathinda, in Reference No. 25 of 2019, whereby the application filed by the petitioner management for reframing of issues has been dismissed. As per the pleaded facts, Respondent No.2 was appointed with the petitioner as Territory Business Manager, Acute Care Division, appointment letter dated 13.06.2011, with joining not later than 20.06.2011, and was, as per the record, subsequently redesignated, with effect from June, 2017, as Senior Territory Business Manager. It is the petitioner’s case that respondent No.2, while so employed, ve misconduct by repeatedly submitting false field reports of ......Petitioner PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR .....Respondents er Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of order dated 16.07.2024 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bathinda, in titioner- As per the pleaded facts, Respondent No.2 was appointed with the petitioner as Territory Business Manager, Acute Care Division, 13.06.2011, with joining not later than 20.06.2011, and was, as per the record, subsequently redesignated, with effect from June, 2017, as Senior Territory Business Manager. It is the petitioner’s case that respondent No.2, while so employed, ve misconduct by repeatedly submitting false field reports of SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15459 having met doctors on dates on which they were, in fact, either transferred out of his territory, out of the country, or, in one instance, no longer alive. A domestic enquiry was constituted, an Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 29.05.2018; the petitioner’s case is that respondent No.2, through his conduct during the enquiry proceedings, rendered it impossible for the enquiry to be meaningfully concluded, whereupon the petitioner discontinued the enquiry and terminated his services vide order dated 30.10.2018.Aggrieved by the termination, respondent No.2 raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to learned Labour Court and registered as Reference No. 25 of of claim, respondent No.2 sought reinstatement at Jalandhar with continuity of service, seniority and back wages. In its written statement, the petitioner took the specific plea that respondent No.2 was not a “workman” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, having regard to the supervisory, administrative and managerial nature of the duties discharged by him as Senior Territory Business Manager, and that the reference was, consequently, not maintaina the termination on merits as founded on grave and serious misconduct of false reporting. On 03.01.2023, learned Labour Court framed the following issues: (1) (2) 15459-2026 (O&M) -2- having met doctors on dates on which they were, in fact, either transferred out of his territory, out of the country, or, in one instance, no longer alive. A domestic enquiry was constituted, and Mr. Ashok Grover was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 29.05.2018; the petitioner’s case is that respondent No.2, through his conduct during the enquiry proceedings, rendered it impossible for the enquiry to be meaningfully concluded, pon the petitioner discontinued the enquiry and terminated his services vide order dated 30.10.2018.Aggrieved by the termination, respondent No.2 raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to learned Labour Court and registered as Reference No. 25 of of claim, respondent No.2 sought reinstatement at Jalandhar with continuity of service, seniority and back wages. In its written statement, the petitioner took the specific plea that respondent No.2 was not a “workman” within the aning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, having regard to the supervisory, administrative and managerial nature of the duties discharged by him as Senior Territory Business Manager, and that the reference was, consequently, not maintaina the termination on merits as founded on grave and serious misconduct of false reporting. On 03.01.2023, learned Labour Court framed the following (1) “I. Whether the termination of service of workman is legal, valid and justified? (OP (2) II. Whether there exist relationship of employee & employer between the parties? (OPW) having met doctors on dates on which they were, in fact, either transferred out of his territory, out of the country, or, in one instance, no longer alive. A d Mr. Ashok Grover was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 29.05.2018; the petitioner’s case is that respondent No.2, through his conduct during the enquiry proceedings, rendered it impossible for the enquiry to be meaningfully concluded, pon the petitioner discontinued the enquiry and terminated his services vide order dated 30.10.2018.Aggrieved by the termination, respondent No.2 raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to learned Labour Court and registered as Reference No. 25 of 2019. In his statement of claim, respondent No.2 sought reinstatement at Jalandhar with continuity of service, seniority and back wages. In its written statement, the petitioner took the specific plea that respondent No.2 was not a “workman” within the aning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, having regard to the supervisory, administrative and managerial nature of the duties discharged by him as Senior Territory Business Manager, and that the reference was, consequently, not maintainable; the petitioner also defended the termination on merits as founded on grave and serious misconduct of false reporting. On 03.01.2023, learned Labour Court framed the following “I. Whether the termination of service of workman is legal, d justified? (OPW) II. Whether there exist relationship of employee & employer between the parties? (OPW) having met doctors on dates on which they were, in fact, either transferred out of his territory, out of the country, or, in one instance, no longer alive. A d Mr. Ashok Grover was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 29.05.2018; the petitioner’s case is that respondent No.2, through his conduct during the enquiry proceedings, rendered it impossible for the enquiry to be meaningfully concluded, pon the petitioner discontinued the enquiry and terminated his services vide order dated 30.10.2018.Aggrieved by the termination, respondent No.2 raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to learned 2019. In his statement of claim, respondent No.2 sought reinstatement at Jalandhar with continuity of service, seniority and back wages. In its written statement, the petitioner took the specific plea that respondent No.2 was not a “workman” within the aning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, having regard to the supervisory, administrative and managerial nature of the duties discharged by him as Senior Territory Business Manager, and that the ble; the petitioner also defended the termination on merits as founded on grave and serious misconduct of false reporting. On 03.01.2023, learned Labour Court framed the following “I. Whether the termination of service of workman is legal, II. Whether there exist relationship of employee & employer SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15459 3. and of the omission to frame a separate issue on the workman status of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed an application dated 20.10.2023 for reframing of issues, seeking deletion of Issue No.2 and framing of additional issues, including “ Section 2(s) of Industrial Dispute said issue be decided as a preliminary issue. In support, the petitioner relied upon J.K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Kanpur v. The Iron and Steel Mazdoor Union, Kanpur Tribunal, though not bound by the strict technicalities of a civil court, must follow the general pattern of civil courts in the matter of taking the pleadings of the parties in writing and the drawing up of issues. Respondent No.2 filed objections dated that it sought impermissibly to shift the onus of proof from the management to the workman, and that the issues as framed on 03.01.2023 were adequate. 4. 16.07.2024, dismissed the application, holding that the issues already stood framed on 03.01.2023 after hearing both sides; that the onus had rightly been placed on the management under Issue No.1 to prove that the termination was legal, justif the workman to prove the relationship of employer and employee, was itself sufficient to bring out the controversy, since the workman, to succeed thereon, would necessarily have to establish that 15459-2026 (O&M) -3- (3) III. Relief.” Aggrieved of the framing of Issue No.2 in the aforesaid terms and of the omission to frame a separate issue on the workman status of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed an application dated 20.10.2023 for reframing of issues, seeking deletion of Issue No.2 and framing of additional issues, including “Whether the claimant is workman as per purview of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? OPW said issue be decided as a preliminary issue. In support, the petitioner relied .K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Kanpur v. The Iron and Steel Mazdoor Union, Kanpur, AIR 1956 SC 231, to contend that an Industrial Tribunal, though not bound by the strict technicalities of a civil court, must follow the general pattern of civil courts in the matter of taking the pleadings of the parties in writing and the drawing up of issues. Respondent No.2 filed objections dated 17.05.2024 opposing the application, contending, inter alia, that it sought impermissibly to shift the onus of proof from the management to the workman, and that the issues as framed on 03.01.2023 were adequate. Learned Labour Court, vide the impugned 16.07.2024, dismissed the application, holding that the issues already stood framed on 03.01.2023 after hearing both sides; that the onus had rightly been placed on the management under Issue No.1 to prove that the termination was legal, justified and reasonable; and that Issue No.2, casting the onus on the workman to prove the relationship of employer and employee, was itself sufficient to bring out the controversy, since the workman, to succeed thereon, would necessarily have to establish that III. Relief.” Aggrieved of the framing of Issue No.2 in the aforesaid terms and of the omission to frame a separate issue on the workman status of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed an application dated 20.10.2023 for reframing of issues, seeking deletion of Issue No.2 and framing of additional Whether the claimant is workman as per purview of s Act, 1947? OPW”, with a request that the said issue be decided as a preliminary issue. In support, the petitioner relied .K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Kanpur v. The Iron and Steel , AIR 1956 SC 231, to contend that an Industrial Tribunal, though not bound by the strict technicalities of a civil court, must follow the general pattern of civil courts in the matter of taking the pleadings of the parties in writing and the drawing up of issues. Respondent No.2 filed 17.05.2024 opposing the application, contending, inter alia, that it sought impermissibly to shift the onus of proof from the management to the workman, and that the issues as framed on 03.01.2023 were adequate. Learned Labour Court, vide the impugned order dated 16.07.2024, dismissed the application, holding that the issues already stood framed on 03.01.2023 after hearing both sides; that the onus had rightly been placed on the management under Issue No.1 to prove that the termination ied and reasonable; and that Issue No.2, casting the onus on the workman to prove the relationship of employer and employee, was itself sufficient to bring out the controversy, since the workman, to succeed thereon, would necessarily have to establish that he answers the description Aggrieved of the framing of Issue No.2 in the aforesaid terms and of the omission to frame a separate issue on the workman status of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed an application dated 20.10.2023 for reframing of issues, seeking deletion of Issue No.2 and framing of additional Whether the claimant is workman as per purview of ”, with a request that the said issue be decided as a preliminary issue. In support, the petitioner relied .K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Kanpur v. The Iron and Steel , AIR 1956 SC 231, to contend that an Industrial Tribunal, though not bound by the strict technicalities of a civil court, must follow the general pattern of civil courts in the matter of taking the pleadings of the parties in writing and the drawing up of issues. Respondent No.2 filed 17.05.2024 opposing the application, contending, inter alia, that it sought impermissibly to shift the onus of proof from the management to the workman, and that the issues as framed on 03.01.2023 were adequate. order dated 16.07.2024, dismissed the application, holding that the issues already stood framed on 03.01.2023 after hearing both sides; that the onus had rightly been placed on the management under Issue No.1 to prove that the termination ied and reasonable; and that Issue No.2, casting the onus on the workman to prove the relationship of employer and employee, was itself sufficient to bring out the controversy, since the workman, to succeed he answers the description SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15459 of a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act. Learned Labour Court accordingly directed the workman to lead evidence first on the question of relationship, and scheduled the matter for that purpose. 5. order is unsustainable inasmuch as there was never any real dispute between the parties as to whether respondent No.2 was, in fact, employed with the petitioner- the real controversy requiring adjudication is a distinct one, namely, whether respondent No.2, having regard to the supervisory and managerial nature of his duties as Senior Territory Business Manager, answers the description of a “workman” un general issue on the “relationship of employee and employer” without a separate issue on workman status, learned Labour Court has left the real point in the petitioner’s defence unaddressed. Issue No.1, as framed, itself describes respondent No.2 as a “workman”, thereby assuming, even before evidence is led, the very fact required to be established. Reliance is placed on Steel Mazdoor Union proper issues arising from the pleadings, may not fly off at a tangent disregarding the pleadings, and must confine adjudication to the real controversy between the parties so that each meet. 6. impugned order along with the material on record. 15459-2026 (O&M) -4- of a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act. Learned Labour Court accordingly directed the workman to lead evidence first on the question of relationship, and scheduled the matter for that purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is unsustainable inasmuch as there was never any real dispute between the parties as to whether respondent No.2 was, in fact, employed with the petitioner- a fact admitted in the written statement itself. It is sub the real controversy requiring adjudication is a distinct one, namely, whether respondent No.2, having regard to the supervisory and managerial nature of his duties as Senior Territory Business Manager, answers the description of a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act at all, and that by retaining only a general issue on the “relationship of employee and employer” without a separate issue on workman status, learned Labour Court has left the real point in the petitioner’s defence unaddressed. Issue No.1, as framed, itself describes respondent No.2 as a “workman”, thereby assuming, even before evidence is led, the very fact required to be established. Reliance is placed on J.K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Iron and el Mazdoor Union (supra) to contend a Tribunal is duty proper issues arising from the pleadings, may not fly off at a tangent disregarding the pleadings, and must confine adjudication to the real controversy between the parties so that each I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order along with the material on record. of a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act. Learned Labour Court accordingly directed the workman to lead evidence first on the question of relationship, and scheduled the matter for that purpose. etitioner submits that the impugned order is unsustainable inasmuch as there was never any real dispute between the parties as to whether respondent No.2 was, in fact, employed with the a fact admitted in the written statement itself. It is submitted that the real controversy requiring adjudication is a distinct one, namely, whether respondent No.2, having regard to the supervisory and managerial nature of his duties as Senior Territory Business Manager, answers the description of a der Section 2(s) of the Act at all, and that by retaining only a general issue on the “relationship of employee and employer” without a separate issue on workman status, learned Labour Court has left the real point in the petitioner’s defence unaddressed. It is further submitted that Issue No.1, as framed, itself describes respondent No.2 as a “workman”, thereby assuming, even before evidence is led, the very fact required to be J.K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Iron and (supra) to contend a Tribunal is duty-bound to frame proper issues arising from the pleadings, may not fly off at a tangent disregarding the pleadings, and must confine adjudication to the real controversy between the parties so that each side knows the case it has to I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order along with the material on record. of a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act. Learned Labour Court accordingly directed the workman to lead evidence first on the question of etitioner submits that the impugned order is unsustainable inasmuch as there was never any real dispute between the parties as to whether respondent No.2 was, in fact, employed with the mitted that the real controversy requiring adjudication is a distinct one, namely, whether respondent No.2, having regard to the supervisory and managerial nature of his duties as Senior Territory Business Manager, answers the description of a der Section 2(s) of the Act at all, and that by retaining only a general issue on the “relationship of employee and employer” without a separate issue on workman status, learned Labour Court has left the real It is further submitted that Issue No.1, as framed, itself describes respondent No.2 as a “workman”, thereby assuming, even before evidence is led, the very fact required to be J.K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Iron and bound to frame proper issues arising from the pleadings, may not fly off at a tangent disregarding the pleadings, and must confine adjudication to the real side knows the case it has to I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15459 7. domain of the Tribunal seized of to the pleadings of the parties. Learned Labour Court has, in the impugned order, taken the view that Issue No.2, as framed, casts upon the workman the onus of proving the relationship of employer and employee, would necessarily require him, in the first instance, to demonstrate that he answers the description of a “workman” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act; the question of workman status thus stands subsumed within, rather than omitte characterised as perverse or contrary to the pleadings on record so as to call for interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of 8. petitioner on J.K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. does not advance the petitioner's case any further. Hon’ble the Supreme court in the said judgement categorically issues arising from the pleadings and confine adjudication to the real controversy between the parties is not, in substance, at variance. The Labour Court found the issues as framed adequate to bring out the real controversy between the parties. Nor does the said judgment lay down that every distinct facet of a controversy must be carved into a separate, free issues framed, taken together, dispute, a test the impugned order squarely applies. Merely because a 15459-2026 (O&M) -5- The framing of issues is essentially a matter falling within the domain of the Tribunal seized of the reference, to be exercised having regard to the pleadings of the parties. Learned Labour Court has, in the impugned order, taken the view that Issue No.2, as framed, casts upon the workman the onus of proving the relationship of employer and employee, would necessarily require him, in the first instance, to demonstrate that he answers the description of a “workman” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act; the question of workman status thus stands subsumed within, rather than omitted from, the issues as framed. The said view cannot be characterised as perverse or contrary to the pleadings on record so as to call for interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of As far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on J.K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. does not advance the petitioner's case any further. Hon’ble the Supreme court in the said judgement categorically issues arising from the pleadings and confine adjudication to the real controversy between the parties - a principle with which the impugned order is not, in substance, at variance. The Labour Court found the issues as d adequate to bring out the real controversy between the parties. Nor does the said judgment lay down that every distinct facet of a controversy must be carved into a separate, free-standing issue issues framed, taken together, be adequate to determine the true questions in dispute, a test the impugned order squarely applies. Merely because a The framing of issues is essentially a matter falling within the the reference, to be exercised having regard to the pleadings of the parties. Learned Labour Court has, in the impugned order, taken the view that Issue No.2, as framed, casts upon the workman the onus of proving the relationship of employer and employee, and that this would necessarily require him, in the first instance, to demonstrate that he answers the description of a “workman” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act; the question of workman status thus stands subsumed within, d from, the issues as framed. The said view cannot be characterised as perverse or contrary to the pleadings on record so as to call for interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on J.K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the same does not advance the petitioner's case any further. Hon’ble the Supreme court in the said judgement categorically held that a Tribunal must frame issues arising from the pleadings and confine adjudication to the real a principle with which the impugned order is not, in substance, at variance. The Labour Court found the issues as d adequate to bring out the real controversy between the parties. Nor does the said judgment lay down that every distinct facet of a controversy standing issue - it requires only that the be adequate to determine the true questions in dispute, a test the impugned order squarely applies. Merely because a The framing of issues is essentially a matter falling within the the reference, to be exercised having regard to the pleadings of the parties. Learned Labour Court has, in the impugned order, taken the view that Issue No.2, as framed, casts upon the workman the and that this would necessarily require him, in the first instance, to demonstrate that he answers the description of a “workman” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act; the question of workman status thus stands subsumed within, d from, the issues as framed. The said view cannot be characterised as perverse or contrary to the pleadings on record so as to call for interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested in this As far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the is concerned, the same does not advance the petitioner's case any further. Hon’ble the Supreme held that a Tribunal must frame issues arising from the pleadings and confine adjudication to the real a principle with which the impugned order is not, in substance, at variance. The Labour Court found the issues as d adequate to bring out the real controversy between the parties. Nor does the said judgment lay down that every distinct facet of a controversy it requires only that the be adequate to determine the true questions in SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15459 separate issue has not been framed in the precise language suggested by the petitioner would not, by itself, justify interference when th sought to be raised remains available to be adjudicated on the basis of the existing pleadings and evidence. 9. No.2 as “workman”, the said description merely tracks the nomenclat employed in the terms of reference and the pleadings of the parties for the purpose of identification, and cannot, without more, be read as a pre determination of the very question that Issue No.2 leaves open for adjudication. 10. foreclose the petitioner from establishing, by evidence, that respondent No.2 does not answer the description of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act; on the contrary, that very question stands embedded in Issue No.2 remains to be decided upon evidence being led by the parties learned Labour Court has directed the workman to lead evidence first on that very issue, which, if anything, places the initial burden on him and answers the petitioner’s apprehens 11. declining to reframe issues is an interlocutory order passed in the course of proceedings before the Tribunal, and such orders do not, ordinarily, warrant interference in wr in a failure of justice or has foreclosed a party from establishing its defence. In the present case, it remains open to the petitioner to lead evidence and 15459-2026 (O&M) -6- separate issue has not been framed in the precise language suggested by the petitioner would not, by itself, justify interference when th sought to be raised remains available to be adjudicated on the basis of the existing pleadings and evidence. As regards the grievance that Issue No.1 describes respondent No.2 as “workman”, the said description merely tracks the nomenclat employed in the terms of reference and the pleadings of the parties for the purpose of identification, and cannot, without more, be read as a pre determination of the very question that Issue No.2 leaves open for adjudication. Read as a whole, the issues framed on 03.01.2023 do not foreclose the petitioner from establishing, by evidence, that respondent No.2 does not answer the description of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act; on the contrary, that very question stands embedded in Issue No.2 remains to be decided upon evidence being led by the parties learned Labour Court has directed the workman to lead evidence first on that very issue, which, if anything, places the initial burden on him and answers the petitioner’s apprehension of prejudice. Even otherwise, it is well settled that an order framing or declining to reframe issues is an interlocutory order passed in the course of proceedings before the Tribunal, and such orders do not, ordinarily, warrant interference in writ jurisdiction unless it is shown that the same has resulted in a failure of justice or has foreclosed a party from establishing its defence. In the present case, it remains open to the petitioner to lead evidence and separate issue has not been framed in the precise language suggested by the petitioner would not, by itself, justify interference when the controversy sought to be raised remains available to be adjudicated on the basis of the As regards the grievance that Issue No.1 describes respondent No.2 as “workman”, the said description merely tracks the nomenclat employed in the terms of reference and the pleadings of the parties for the purpose of identification, and cannot, without more, be read as a pre determination of the very question that Issue No.2 leaves open for e issues framed on 03.01.2023 do not foreclose the petitioner from establishing, by evidence, that respondent No.2 does not answer the description of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act; on the contrary, that very question stands embedded in Issue No.2 and remains to be decided upon evidence being led by the parties - indeed, learned Labour Court has directed the workman to lead evidence first on that very issue, which, if anything, places the initial burden on him and answers ion of prejudice. Even otherwise, it is well settled that an order framing or declining to reframe issues is an interlocutory order passed in the course of proceedings before the Tribunal, and such orders do not, ordinarily, warrant it jurisdiction unless it is shown that the same has resulted in a failure of justice or has foreclosed a party from establishing its defence. In the present case, it remains open to the petitioner to lead evidence and separate issue has not been framed in the precise language suggested by the e controversy sought to be raised remains available to be adjudicated on the basis of the As regards the grievance that Issue No.1 describes respondent No.2 as “workman”, the said description merely tracks the nomenclature employed in the terms of reference and the pleadings of the parties for the purpose of identification, and cannot, without more, be read as a pre- determination of the very question that Issue No.2 leaves open for e issues framed on 03.01.2023 do not foreclose the petitioner from establishing, by evidence, that respondent No.2 does not answer the description of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act; and indeed, learned Labour Court has directed the workman to lead evidence first on that very issue, which, if anything, places the initial burden on him and answers Even otherwise, it is well settled that an order framing or declining to reframe issues is an interlocutory order passed in the course of proceedings before the Tribunal, and such orders do not, ordinarily, warrant it jurisdiction unless it is shown that the same has resulted in a failure of justice or has foreclosed a party from establishing its defence. SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-15459 address arguments, at the appropria respondent No.2 falls within the definition of “workman”. No prejudice, therefore, is shown to have been caused to the petitioner by the manner in which the issues stand framed. 12. with the impugned order dated 16.07.2024. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all its contentions, including on the question of the workman status of respondent No.2, before l Labour Court at the appropriate stage. 13. July 28, 2026 SwarnjitS 15459-2026 (O&M) -7- address arguments, at the appropriate stage, on the question of whether respondent No.2 falls within the definition of “workman”. No prejudice, therefore, is shown to have been caused to the petitioner by the manner in which the issues stand framed. For the reasons aforesaid, this Cour with the impugned order dated 16.07.2024. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all its contentions, including on the question of the workman status of respondent No.2, before l Labour Court at the appropriate stage. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. July 28, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable te stage, on the question of whether respondent No.2 falls within the definition of “workman”. No prejudice, therefore, is shown to have been caused to the petitioner by the manner in For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.07.2024. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all its contentions, including on the question of the workman status of respondent No.2, before learned Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE : Yes : No te stage, on the question of whether respondent No.2 falls within the definition of “workman”. No prejudice, therefore, is shown to have been caused to the petitioner by the manner in t finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.07.2024. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to raise all its contentions, including earned SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.31 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document