CWP-13535 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 110 ABBOTT HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL COURT U.T., CHANDIGARH AND ANR. CORAM: Present: KIRTI SINGH (1) 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 06.03.2026 (Annexure P cum-Labour Court, “the Tribunal”), in Reference No. IDR versus Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and others”, whereby the application filed by the petitioner reframing of the said issue, has been dismissed. (2) respondent No.2 Manager cadre post, w.e.f. 09.07.2013, and was Sales Development Manager vide letter dated 02.05.2015 13535-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13535 DATE OF DECISION: 1 ABBOTT HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED Versus PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL COURT U.T., CHANDIGARH AND ANR. HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Mr. Anil Bhatt, Advocate for Mr. Gurmej Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. SINGH, J. (ORAL) The challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 06.03.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), in Reference No. IDR-39 of 2022, titled “Saurabh Kapoor versus Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and others”, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-management for shifting of onus reframing of the said issue, has been dismissed. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2-workman was appointed as Sr. Territory Manager, a Manager cadre post, w.e.f. 09.07.2013, and was Sales Development Manager vide letter dated 02.05.2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 13535-2026 DATE OF DECISION: 14.07.2026 ABBOTT HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED … Petitioner (s) PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT U.T., CHANDIGARH AND ANR. ... Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner.(through VC) The challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 06.03.2026 1) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 39 of 2022, titled “Saurabh Kapoor versus Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and others”, whereby the application filed management for shifting of onus of Issue No.2 and for reframing of the said issue, has been dismissed. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that workman was appointed as Sr. Territory Manager, a Manager cadre post, w.e.f. 09.07.2013, and was subsequently promoted as Sales Development Manager vide letter dated 02.05.2015. He submits that the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH The challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 06.03.2026 1) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 39 of 2022, titled “Saurabh Kapoor versus Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and others”, whereby the application filed of Issue No.2 and for It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that workman was appointed as Sr. Territory Manager, a subsequently promoted as that the SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.17 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13535 duties performed by respondent No.2 being managerial and administrative in nature, do not fall within the categories prescribed under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, so as to constitute him a It is the further submission No.2, in the dispute pending before it for adjudication, the onus upon the petiti not fall within the definition of law that the burden to establish the status of asserting the same. seeking reframing of Issue No.2 and shifting of the onus thereof upon respondent No.2, impugned order. Reliance in support of the submissions has been placed on the judgment S.T. Hadimani Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola, Tauru versus Harpal Singh another, Chakravarti versus Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. & another 371. (3) through the record with his able assistance. (4) present case relationship between the petitioner dispute. It is an admitted position that respondent No.2 was appointed by, and 13535-2026 -2- duties performed by respondent No.2 being managerial and administrative in nature, do not fall within the categories prescribed under Section 2(s) of the ndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, so as to constitute him a It is the further submission that the learned Tribunal, while framing Issue in the dispute pending before it for adjudication, the onus upon the petitioner-management to prove that respondent No.2 does not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ law that the burden to establish the status of asserting the same. An application in this reg seeking reframing of Issue No.2 and shifting of the onus thereof upon respondent No.2, which too has been erroneously dismissed vide the impugned order. Reliance in support of the submissions has been placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.T. Hadimani, (2002) 3 SCC 25, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Versus Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola, (2019) 3 SCC 615 Tauru versus Harpal Singh another, 1998(5) SCC 635, Chakravarti versus Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. & another I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance. Reverting to the case in hand, it is significant to no case is not a case where the existence of employer relationship between the petitioner-management and respondent No.2 is in t is an admitted position that respondent No.2 was appointed by, and duties performed by respondent No.2 being managerial and administrative in nature, do not fall within the categories prescribed under Section 2(s) of the ndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, so as to constitute him a ‘workman’ thereunder that the learned Tribunal, while framing Issue in the dispute pending before it for adjudication, has erroneously cast management to prove that respondent No.2 does ’, contrary to the settled position of law that the burden to establish the status of ‘workman’ lies upon the person in this regard was moved by the petitioner seeking reframing of Issue No.2 and shifting of the onus thereof upon has been erroneously dismissed vide the impugned order. Reliance in support of the submissions has been placed on s of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Range Forest Officer versus Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Versus (2019) 3 SCC 615, Municipal Committee 1998(5) SCC 635, and Shankar Chakravarti versus Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. & another, (1979) 3 SCC I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone Reverting to the case in hand, it is significant to note that the is not a case where the existence of employer-employee management and respondent No.2 is in t is an admitted position that respondent No.2 was appointed by, and duties performed by respondent No.2 being managerial and administrative in nature, do not fall within the categories prescribed under Section 2(s) of the thereunder. that the learned Tribunal, while framing Issue has erroneously cast management to prove that respondent No.2 does , contrary to the settled position of lies upon the person moved by the petitioner, seeking reframing of Issue No.2 and shifting of the onus thereof upon has been erroneously dismissed vide the impugned order. Reliance in support of the submissions has been placed on Range Forest Officer versus Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Versus Municipal Committee Shankar , (1979) 3 SCC I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone te that the employee management and respondent No.2 is in t is an admitted position that respondent No.2 was appointed by, and SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.17 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13535 worked with the petition of his services. What is in dispute is the specific plea taken by the petitioner management in its written statement, that the duties discharged by respondent No.2 being supervisory, managerial of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act. Having itself raised this specific plea/exception, the onus to substantiate the same, by leading cogent evidence as to the actual nature of duties discharged by respondent No.2, wo necessarily lie upon the petitioner relevant service record and job particulars of respondent No.2 lie. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, being rendered in the context of dis clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case, and were rightly distinguished by the learned Tribunal. (5) is merely an interlocu Tribunal has neither finally determined the status of respondent No.2 as a “workman” nor adjudicated the rights and liabilities of the parties. The order only apportions the burden of proof on a partic liberty to lead their respective evidence. No substantive right of either party stands conclusively determined by the impugned order. Interference under Articles 226 at such an interlocutory stage is therefore unwarranted particularly when the petitioner shall have full opportunity to establish its plea before the learned Tribunal at an appropriate stage. 13535-2026 -3- worked with the petitioner-management from 09.07.2013 till the termination of his services. What is in dispute is the specific plea taken by the petitioner management in its written statement, that the duties discharged by respondent No.2 being supervisory, managerial in nature, of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act. Having itself raised this specific plea/exception, the onus to substantiate the same, by leading cogent evidence as to the actual nature of duties discharged by respondent No.2, wo necessarily lie upon the petitioner-management, in whose possession the relevant service record and job particulars of respondent No.2 lie. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, being rendered in the context of disputes as to the very fact of engagement, are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case, and were rightly distinguished by the learned Tribunal. Be that as it may, it also deserves notice that the impugned order is merely an interlocutory order regulating the course of trial. The learned Tribunal has neither finally determined the status of respondent No.2 as a “workman” nor adjudicated the rights and liabilities of the parties. The order only apportions the burden of proof on a partic liberty to lead their respective evidence. No substantive right of either party stands conclusively determined by the impugned order. Interference under Articles 226 at such an interlocutory stage is therefore unwarranted particularly when the petitioner shall have full opportunity to establish its plea before the learned Tribunal at an appropriate stage. management from 09.07.2013 till the termination of his services. What is in dispute is the specific plea taken by the petitioner management in its written statement, that the duties discharged by respondent nature, exclude him from the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act. Having itself raised this specific plea/exception, the onus to substantiate the same, by leading cogent evidence as to the actual nature of duties discharged by respondent No.2, wo management, in whose possession the relevant service record and job particulars of respondent No.2 lie. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, being putes as to the very fact of engagement, are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case, and were rightly t also deserves notice that the impugned order tory order regulating the course of trial. The learned Tribunal has neither finally determined the status of respondent No.2 as a “workman” nor adjudicated the rights and liabilities of the parties. The order only apportions the burden of proof on a particular issue, leaving the parties at liberty to lead their respective evidence. No substantive right of either party stands conclusively determined by the impugned order. Interference under Articles 226 at such an interlocutory stage is therefore unwarranted particularly when the petitioner shall have full opportunity to establish its plea before the learned Tribunal at an appropriate stage. management from 09.07.2013 till the termination of his services. What is in dispute is the specific plea taken by the petitioner- management in its written statement, that the duties discharged by respondent exclude him from the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act. Having itself raised this specific plea/exception, the onus to substantiate the same, by leading cogent evidence as to the actual nature of duties discharged by respondent No.2, would management, in whose possession the relevant service record and job particulars of respondent No.2 lie. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, being putes as to the very fact of engagement, are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case, and were rightly t also deserves notice that the impugned order tory order regulating the course of trial. The learned Tribunal has neither finally determined the status of respondent No.2 as a “workman” nor adjudicated the rights and liabilities of the parties. The order ular issue, leaving the parties at liberty to lead their respective evidence. No substantive right of either party stands conclusively determined by the impugned order. Interference under Articles 226 at such an interlocutory stage is therefore unwarranted, particularly when the petitioner shall have full opportunity to establish its plea SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.17 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13535 (6) same is hereby dismissed. (7) disposed of. July 14, 2026 SwarnjitS 13535-2026 -4- In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Civil miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, are also disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition and the miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, are also (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition and the miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, are also SWARNJIT SINGH 2026.07.17 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document