The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v. Sachin Moghe

Bombay HC24 Feb 2026WP/3059/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HSBC v. Sachin Moghe; Bombay HC Writ Petition 3059/2025 (decided 11-03-2026, Sandeep V. Marne, J.); Article 227 Constitution of India; CGIT-II Mumbai order dated 30-08-2024 directing simultaneous trial of all issues; workman status under Section 2(s) ID Act 1947; termination w.e.f. 23.04.2012; Sections 25G and 25H ID Act among framed issues; refusal to treat Issue No.1 as preliminary issue due to delay (14 years from discharge, 10 years from reference); writ petition disposed of, all issues left open on merits.

What did the court decide?

None; all issues on merits left open and the Writ Petition disposed of ¶¶33

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; all issues on merits left open and the Writ Petition disposed of

¶¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the CGIT's direction that all six framed issues be tried and decided simultaneously (instead of treating Issue No.1 on workman status as a preliminary issue) warranted interference by this Court. +1 more

¶¶28

Court's answer

With 14 years elapsed since the Respondent's discharge on 23 April 2012 and 10 years since the Reference, and delay being the relevant factor for determining whether an issue of status should be decided preliminarily, it is not necessary at this belated stage to split the issues and treat Issue No.1 as a preliminary issue; it is appropriate that all issues are decided together.

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

The Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the facts of this case.

¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Sandeep V. Marne, J.; Writ Petition No. 3059 of 2025, decided 11 March 2026. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 30 August 2024 of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, Mumbai, directing that all six issues (framed on 23 March 2023 pursuant to a reference dated 20 December 2016 concerning whether Sachin Moghe, Purchase Manager-IT, was a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947 and whether his termination w.e.f. 23.04.2012 was just and proper) be tried and decided simultaneously instead of taking Issue No.1 as a preliminary issue. Held: with 14 years elapsed since discharge and 10 years since the reference, delay being the relevant factor, it was not necessary at that belated stage to split the issues; all issues were to be decided together; the Judge declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 and disposed of the writ petition leaving all issues on merits open.

¶1

Neeta Sawant 83-WP-3059-2025 copy.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3059 OF 2025

¶4

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited

…..PETITIONER

: VERSUS :

Sachin Moghe

….RESPONDENT

Mr. Jayeeta Das i/b. Desai & Desai Associate, for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Sachin Moghe, Respondent in person present.

¶11

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 11 MARCH 2026.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1) The petition challenges order dated 30 August 2024 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, Mumbai (CGIT) directing that all issues framed shall be decided simultaneously.

¶14

2) I have heard Ms. Das the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the Respondent appearing in person. The appropriate Government has referred the following reference by order dated 20 December 2016 :

¶15

“Whether Shri. Sachin Moghe, Purchase Manager-IT while working at HSBC Ltd. At its Malad Office, Mumbai is a workman within the meaning of Section

¶16

PAGE NO. 1 OF 3

¶17

11 MARCH 2026

¶18

83-WP-3059-2025 copy.docx

¶19

Neeta Sawant

¶20

2(s) of the ID Act, 1947 and what was the nature of duties performed by him? If so, whether the action of HSBC in terminating his services w.e.f. 23.04.2012 were just and proper? If yes, what relief the Second Party would be entitled to?”

¶21

3) By order dated 23 March 2023, the CGIT has framed following 6 issues :

¶22

Whether Shri. Sachin N. Moghe, Purchase Manager-IT while working with HSBC Ltd. at its Malad Office, Mumbai is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947 ? OPW.

¶23

If issue No.1 is proved, whether the action of management in terminating his services w.e.f. 23.04.2012 is just and proper? If so what relief ? – OPW

¶24

Whether the benefits post termination have not been given in full to the workman ? – OPW

¶25

Whether the management has violated the provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ? – OPW.

¶26

Whether the reference is not maintainable ? OPM.

¶27

Relief.

¶28

4) There is nothing in the order dated 23 March 2023 which indicates that Issue no.1 is treated as a preliminary issue to be decided before taking up other issues for determination. Though no specific order was passed by the CGIT treating Issue No.1 as preliminary issue, the manner in which the statement of the Respondent was recorded on 23 March 2023 created an impression in his mind that the Tribunal is likely to take up issue No.1 for preliminary determination. This led to filing of applications at Exh.27 and 29 by the Respondent seeking a clarification that all issues be tried and decided finally. By the impugned order dated 30 August 2024, the CGIT has directed that all issues shall be tried and decided simultaneously.

¶29

PAGE NO. 2 OF 3

¶30

11 MARCH 2026

¶31

Neeta Sawant 83-WP-3059-2025 copy.docx

¶32

5) In the present case, the Respondent has been discharged from service on 23 April 2012. A period of 14 long years has elapsed from the date of discharge. Even from the date of Reference, period of 10 years has PASSED. Without going into the issue as to which party is responsible for delay, it would be in the interest of the parties that the Reference is decided in an expeditious manner. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary at this belated stage to split the issues and treat Issue No.1 as preliminary issue. Since delay likely to be caused in decision of the proceedings is the relevant factor for determining whether to decide the issue of status as preliminary issue, in my view, it is appropriate that all issues are decided together. Considering the above position, I am not inclined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

6) Leaving all issues on merits open, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶34

NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT

¶35

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

¶36

Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2026.03.13 17:47:39 +0530

¶37

PAGE NO. 3 OF 3

¶38

11 MARCH 2026

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v. Sachin Moghe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v. Sachin Moghe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Habib Bismillah Khan vs Lal Amin Shahi Khan

Tata Capital Limited vs Tej Pal Kanaram Choudhary

Icici Home Finance Company Limited vs Aamir Iqbal Sheikh

Eyevet Clinics Private Limited through its authorized representative Sujit Deshpande vs Palle Aravind Kumar

E v Homes Construction Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Vicky Thomas vs Vishwashanti Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

Aditya Birla Capital Limited vs Polisetti Satyanarayana