Synopsis

The respondent, designated as a Commercial Officer, was terminated by the petitioner Company. He filed a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act alleging unfair labour practice. The Labour Court initially held that he was not an “employee” under the Act. The Industrial Court in revision set aside that finding and remanded the matter. After multiple rounds of litigation, the Labour Court ultimately allowed the complaint, holding that the termination was illegal and granting reinstatement with back wages. The Industrial Court affirmed. The Bombay High Court quashed both orders, holding that the respondent’s dominant duties were supervisory and administrative in nature (signing leave applications, handling cash, dispatch coordination, excise compliance), not clerical. Consequently, he was not a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and therefore not an “employee” under the MRTU & PULP Act. The court also held that non‑challenge to an earlier interlocutory order does not bar the High Court from examining its correctness in a writ petition against the final adjudication, given the supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Borkar (Single Judge)

Date of Judgment: 8th May, 2026

Citation: Writ Petition No. 1030 of 2025 (unreported)

Core Law: Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 – Section 3(5) (definition of employee), Schedule IV Item 1(f); Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(s) (definition of workman); Constitution of India – Articles 226, 227

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at bombay civil appellate jurisdiction

Writ petition no. 1030 of 2025

M/s automatic electric ltd. through its director sharad d. bal (petitioner) vs. Tukaram mahadev mejari (respondent)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice amit borkar

Reserved on: 7th may, 2026; pronounced on: 8th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

Maharashtra recognition of trade unions and prevention of unfair labour practices act, 1971 – section 3(5) (definition of “employee” – means any employee as defined in the industrial disputes act, 1947), schedule iv item 1(f) (terminating services of a workman without following principles of natural justice as unfair labour practice)

Industrial disputes act, 1947 – section 2(s) (definition of “workman” – includes clerical, supervisory, technical, etc., but excludes those in managerial or administrative capacity or drawing wages above prescribed limit)

Constitution of india, 1950 – article 226 (writ jurisdiction), article 227 (superintendence over subordinate courts and tribunals)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether an employee designated as Commercial Officer, performing duties such as signing leave applications of workmen, handling octroi cash, coordinating dispatch, corresponding with customers, and managing excise formalities, is a “

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.