AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Kanakaraj, J.—I am taking up the writ petition for final disposal, because the writ petition challenges the finding on preliminary issue by
the first respondent. In and by the order, dated 25 September, 1995 made in C.P. 58 of 1993, the first respondent has held that the second
respondent is a workman and therefore, entitled to maintain the application. That finding is challenged in this Court on the ground that the second
respondent is not a workman at all, because he was employed in the scale applicable to the supervisors and his last drawn salary was Rs.
2,548.62. His work is in the nature of supervising the cutting, staking, loading and shipment of the trees cut by the contractors. The petitioner is
aware of the fact that such preliminary finding should not be challenged in writ proceedings and thereby causing a delay in the disposal of the case.
He has therefore referred to certain decisions in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition to suggest that in fit and proper case, the writ
petition can be filed. I do not accept the contention of the writ-petitioner that the writ categorical judgment of a Division Bench of this Court
reported in N. Gurumurthy v. Second Additional Labour Court 1995 I LLN 1022 that judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
This is not a case where finding was recorded without notice to the parties or without giving any reason for holding that the second respondent is a
workman. Further, it is open to the writ-petitioner to question the correctness of the finding as to whether the second respondent is a workman or
not, after the final disposal of the proceedings before the Labour Court. In other words, in the event of the petitioner challenging the final decision
of the first respondent, liberty is given to him to challenge the finding as to whether the second respondent is a workman or not. Thus, the writ-
petitioner is fully safeguarded and there is no necessity to decided this writ petition on the preliminary issue. Following the judgment of the Division
Bench above cited, this writ petition is dismissed.