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. 4. It is submitted that subsequently, on a judgement being rendered 1/5 MINAL SANDIP PARAB Digitally signed by MINAL SANDIP PARAB Date: 2026.07.28 10:55:58 +0530 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.) 5/5 Minal Parab