M/S Arora Sari Emporium vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of both parties. The petitioner was granted permission to file an objection before the Labour Court within three weeks. The Labour Court was directed to first decide this preliminary objection strictly in accordance with the law, expeditiously, and preferably within three months, after providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The Court did not decide the substantive issue of whether Ashish Pandey is a "workman" but rather provided a procedural path for its determination. The ratio decidendi is that procedural objections should be raised before the adjudicating authority first, and High Courts may permit this even in writ petitions when parties consent to a final disposal on that basis.

Facts

M/s Arora Sari Emporium, a registered firm for GST and tax purposes, filed a writ petition challenging a reference order of an industrial dispute dated February 3, 2022, under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The petitioner also sought to quash a notice dated February 9, 2022, issued by the Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 1 of 2022, and requested the respondent no. 3 (Labour Court) not to proceed with the adjudication. The petitioner argued that Ashish Pandey is not a workman under the Industrial Development Act. The respondents contended that any grievance against the reference should be raised before the Labour Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether Ashish Pandey is a "workman" as defined under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, in the context of M/s Arora Sari Emporium being a registered entity for GST and tax purposes? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that as M/s Arora Sari Emporium is a registered firm for paying GST and tax, Ashish Pandey cannot be considered a "workman" under the Industrial Development Act. The petitioner did not cite any specific authorities or precedents. Revenue's contention: The learned Standing Counsel argued that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the reference order of the Labour Court, the appropriate course of action is to raise a preliminary objection before the Labour Court itself. The respondents did not cite any specific authorities or precedents.