AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge while considering and deciding the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India as preferred by the appellant for vacation of the interim order dated 14.08.2019.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has virtually decided the merits of the case leaving it with no scope at the final stage of hearing of the writ petition. It is asserted that with the findings as has been recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, the fate of the case has been sealed.
Having considered the submissions, as has been made by learned counsel for the appellant and on going to the order dated 24.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, which is impugned herein, it is apparent that the said order is limited to the extent of deciding the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India as preferred by the appellant. In paras 20 and 21 of the said order, it has been stated as follows:
“20. In view of the aforesaid, in the prima-facie opinion of this Court, the respondent having worked as Senior Service Engineer / Service Engineer cannot be brought within the ambit of ‘workman’ as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947.
Though various judgments have been cited by the rival counsel but the same are not exactly on the point involved in the present case. The question is of great significance and relates to the very jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain and decide case filed by the respondent and other persons alike him and thus, detailed hearing is required.”
Perusal of the above two paragraphs would clearly indicate that the Court has only opined on a limited aspect for the purpose of prima facie making an opinion. It goes without saying that the observations made in the said order will have no bearing ultimately at the final stage of hearing of the writ petition and decision thereon. The apprehension of the appellant is, therefore, misplaced.
We do not find any ground for interfering with the order impugned. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.