Dismissed¶11

M/S. Posco Maharashtra Steel v. General Mazdoor Sabha

Bombay HC21 Nov 2025WP/14985/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Posco Maharashtra Steel v. General Mazdoor Sabha; Bombay High Court; Manish Pitale J.; writ petitions 14983-14985 of 2025 dismissed 21.11.2025; Industrial Court Thane; preliminary issue of jurisdiction in reference proceedings; belated application moved at evidence stage; references of 2014, 2015, 2018 pending 7-11 years; D. P. Maheshwari (1983) 4 SCC 293 - all issues decided together; Gujarat Electricity Board 1995 I CLR 967 distinguished; issues kept open at final adjudication; employer-employee relationship root issue; reinstatement dependent; proceedings expedited; no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the three writ petitions were dismissed and the reference proceedings pending before the tribunal were expedited. ¶11

M/S. Posco Maharashtra Steel vs General Mazdoor Sabha — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the three writ petitions were dismissed and the reference proceedings pending before the tribunal were expedited.

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the Industrial Court, Thane erred in rejecting the petitioner's applications seeking that the preliminary issue of the tribunal's jurisdiction be considered first, before adjudication of the other issues in the reference proceedings.

¶2

Court's answer

The tribunal committed no error in rejecting the preliminary-issue applications and in relying on D. P. Maheshwari to hold that all issues, including jurisdiction, are to be decided together, since the union's evidence had commenced and the proceedings had reached an advanced stage.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

In the backdrop of the peculiar facts (references pending 7 to 11 years and at an advanced stage), the petitioner's insistence, founded on Gujarat Electricity Board, that the tribunal ought to have decided the preliminary issue first, cannot be accepted.

¶8

Key takeaways

The impugned orders sufficiently addressed the petitioner's apprehensions by keeping open, for consideration at the time of final adjudication, all issues raised in the applications.ratio¶9
Reference proceedings cannot be permitted to be delayed any further on such belated applications filed by the petitioner company.ratio¶10
Finding no merit in the writ petitions, the Court dismissed them.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Manish Pitale, J., 21.11.2025) dismisses Writ Petitions Nos. 14983, 14984 and 14985 of 2025 filed by M/s. Posco Maharashtra Steel against orders of the Industrial Court, Thane rejecting its applications, moved at an advanced stage of reference proceedings (references of 2014, 2015 and 2018, pending 7 to 11 years, with the union's evidence already commenced), that a preliminary issue on the tribunal's jurisdiction be decided first. The Court held the tribunal committed no error in relying on D. P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration, (1983) 4 SCC 293, that all issues be decided together, and rejected the petitioner's insistence, based on Gujarat Electricity Board v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha, 1995 I CLR 967, on the peculiar facts. All issues were kept open for final adjudication; the employer-employee relationship issue goes to the root and is for the tribunal to decide, reinstatement questions depending on it; no opinion was expressed on merits and the reference proceedings were expedited.

¶1

13to15_WP14983&group_2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.14983 OF 2025 AND

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.14984 OF 2025 AND

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.14985 OF 2025

¶7

M/s. Posco Maharashtra Steel … Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

General Mazdoor Sabha … Respondent

¶10

Mr. Suresh Pakale, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Nilesh Desai and Mr. Vijay Vaidya i/b. Mr. Mahendra Agvekar for Petitioner.

¶11

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 21, 2025

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

. Heard Mr. Pakale, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner company in these three petitions.

¶14

The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that, the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Court, Thane, in these cases, committed an error in rejecting applications moved in reference proceedings, whereby the petitioner had prayed for a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction of the tribunal being considered first before adjudication of other issues.

¶15

MINALSANDIPPARAB Digitally signedby MINALSANDIP PARABDate: 2025.11.2115:52:36 +0530

¶16

It is submitted that unless the said issue is decided, the jurisdiction of the tribunal to entertain the reference is in question and therefore, it would have been appropriate for the tribunal, while passing the impugned order, to allow the impugned applications.

¶17

It is vehemently submitted that since the question of jurisdiction

¶18

1/3

¶19

13to15_WP14983&group_2025.doc

¶20

goes to the very root of the matter, unless the same is first decided, the tribunal ought not to have proceeded in the matter.

¶21

A perusal of the impugned orders passed by the tribunal, in the present case, shows that in each of the three cases, the tribunal has taken into consideration the dates when the statements of claim were filed by the employees union in pursuance of the reference being made, the dates when the written statements were filed on behalf of the petitioner company and also the fact that evidence of the employees’ union had already commenced prior to such applications for framing preliminary issue being moved on behalf of the petitioner company.

¶22

It is a matter of record that the reference proceedings from which these three petitions arise pertain to the years 2014, 2015 and 2018. For all these years, when these proceedings were pending and they reached an advanced stage, the petitioner company did not take any steps for moving such applications. When the evidence on behalf of the respondent employees’ union is being recorded, these applications have been moved. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the tribunal in the impugned order committed an error in relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of D. P. Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration and others , (1983) 4 SCC 293 , to hold that all issues need to be decided together.

¶23

The said observation has been made specifically in the backdrop of the fact that these references have been pending before the tribunal for periods ranging from 7 to 11 years. As noted hereinabove, the proceedings have also reached an advanced stage.

¶24

In the backdrop of these peculiar facts, the insistence of the petitioner company of relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha and

¶25

2/3

¶26

13to15_WP14983&group_2025.doc

¶27

others , 1995 I CLR 967 , and claiming that the tribunal ought to have decided the preliminary issue first, cannot be accepted.

¶28

The tribunal, in the impugned orders, has sufficiently taken care of the apprehensions of the petitioner company by observing that all issues sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioner company in the applications are kept open for consideration at the time of final adjudication.

¶29

Reference proceedings cannot be permitted to be delayed any further on such belated applications filed by the petitioner company.

¶30

In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in these writ petitions and accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.

¶31

Needless to say, the issue as to whether there is an employeremployee relationship between the parties goes to the root of the matter, which the tribunal shall decide in accordance with law. The questions pertaining to reinstatement etc. would obviously be dependent on the findings to be rendered on the aforementioned issue regarding employeremployee relationship. This Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter. The reference proceedings pending before the tribunal are expedited.

¶32

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶33

Minal Parab

¶34

3/3

M/S. Posco Maharashtra Steel v. General Mazdoor Sabha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Posco Maharashtra Steel v. General Mazdoor Sabha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs the Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through Dattatraya Mamadapur vs the Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited

Mahalaxmi Transport Private Limited vs Essel Lucknow Raebareli Tolls Roads Ltd.

Waterfield Advisors Private Limited vs Sridhar Kurpad

Suman Deepak Walkoli vs State of Maharashtra

Aidem Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs Deepak Sharma