ABBOTT HEALTH CARE PRIVATE LIMITED v. COURT U.T., CHANDIGARH & Anr.

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Anil Bhatt, Advocate for Mr. Gurmej Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. , Advocate for the petitioner.(through VC) KIRTI SINGH SINGH, J. (ORAL) (1) The challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Articles The challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Articles The challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 06.03.2026 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 06.03.2026 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 06.03.2026 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 06.03.2026 1) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal 1) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (Annexure P cum-Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 39 of 2022, titled “Saurabh Kapoor “the Tribunal”), in Reference No. IDR-39 of 2022, titled “Saurabh Kapoor 39 of 2022, titled “Saurabh Kapoor “the Tribunal”), in Reference No. IDR versus Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and others”, whereby the application filed versus Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and others”, whereby the application filed versus Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and others”, whereby the application filed versus Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and others”, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-management for shifting of onus by the petitioner of Issue No.2 and for management for shifting of onus of Issue No.2 and for reframing of the said issue, has been dismissed. reframing of the said issue, has been dismissed. reframing of the said issue, has been dismissed. (2) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that workman was appointed as Sr. Territory Manager, a respondent No.2-workman was appointed as Sr. Territory Manager, a workman was appointed as Sr. Territory Manager, a respondent No.2 subsequently promoted as Manager cadre post, w.e.f. 09.07.2013, and was subsequently promoted as Manager cadre post, w.e.f. 09.07.2013, and was Manager cadre post, w.e.f. 09.07.2013, and was that the Sales Development Manager vide letter dated 02.05.2015. He submits that the Sales Development Manager vide letter dated 02.05.2015 Sales Development Manager vide letter dated 02.05.2015 CWP-13535 13535-2026 -2- duties performed by respondent No.2 being managerial and administrative in duties performed by respondent No.2 being managerial and administrative in duties performed by respondent No.2 being managerial and administrative in duties performed by respondent No.2 being managerial and administrative in nature, do not fall within the categories prescribed under Section 2(s) of the nature, do not fall within the categories prescribed under Section 2(s) of the nature, do not fall within the categories prescribed under Section 2(s) of the nature, do not fall within the categories prescribed under Section 2(s) of the thereunder. ndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, so as to constitute him a ‘workman’ thereunder Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, so as to constitute him a ndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, so as to constitute him a that the learned Tribunal, while framing Issue It is the further submission that the learned Tribunal, while framing Issue that the learned Tribunal, while framing Issue It is the further submission has erroneously cast in the dispute pending before it for adjudication, has erroneously cast in the dispute pending before it for adjudication, No.2, in the dispute pending before it for adjudication, management to prove that respondent No.2 does the onus upon the petitioner-management to prove that respondent No.2 does management to prove that respondent No.2 does the onus upon the petiti not fall within the definition of ‘workman’ not fall within the definition of , contrary to the settled position of ’, contrary to the settled position of lies upon the person law that the burden to establish the status of ‘workman’ lies upon the person law that the burden to establish the status of law that the burden to establish the status of asserting the same. An application in this reg asserting the same. moved by the petitioner, in this regard was moved by the petitioner seeking reframing of Issue No.2 and shifting of the onus thereof upon seeking reframing of Issue No.2 and shifting of the onus thereof upon seeking reframing of Issue No.2 and shifting of the onus thereof upon seeking reframing of Issue No.2 and shifting of the onus thereof upon has been erroneously dismissed vide the respondent No.2, which too has been erroneously dismissed vide the has been erroneously dismissed vide the respondent No.2, impugned order. Reliance in support of the submissions has been placed on impugned order. Reliance in support of the submissions has been placed on impugned order. Reliance in support of the submissions has been placed on impugned order. Reliance in support of the submissions has been placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment Range Forest Officer versus s of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Range Forest Officer versus Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Versus S.T. Hadimani, (2002) 3 SCC 25, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Versus Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Versus S.T. Hadimani Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola, (2019) 3 SCC 615 Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola, Municipal Committee (2019) 3 SCC 615, Municipal Committee Tauru versus Harpal Singh another, 1998(5) SCC 635, Tauru versus Harpal Singh another, Shankar 1998(5) SCC 635, and Shankar , (1979) 3 SCC Chakravarti versus Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. & another, (1979) 3 SCC Chakravarti versus Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. & another Chakravarti versus Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. & another

#371. (3) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance. through the record with his able assistance. (4) te that the Reverting to the case in hand, it is significant to note that the Reverting to the case in hand, it is significant to no present case case is not a case where the existence of employer employee is not a case where the existence of employer-employee management and respondent No.2 is in relationship between the petitioner-management and respondent No.2 is in management and respondent No.2 is in relationship between the petitioner t is an admitted position that respondent No.2 was appointed by, and dispute. It is an admitted position that respondent No.2 was appointed by, and t is an admitted position that respondent No.2 was appointed by, and t is an admitted position that respondent No.2 was appointed by, and CWP-13535 13535-2026 -3- management from 09.07.2013 till the termination worked with the petitioner-management from 09.07.2013 till the termination management from 09.07.2013 till the termination worked with the petition of his services. What is in dispute is the specific plea taken by the petitioner- of his services. What is in dispute is the specific plea taken by the petitioner of his services. What is in dispute is the specific plea taken by the petitioner of his services. What is in dispute is the specific plea taken by the petitioner management in its written statement, that the duties discharged by respondent management in its written statement, that the duties discharged by respondent management in its written statement, that the duties discharged by respondent management in its written statement, that the duties discharged by respondent No.2 being supervisory, managerial in nature, No.2 being supervisory, managerial exclude him from the definition nature, exclude him from the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act. Having itself raised this specific of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act. Having itself raised this specific of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act. Having itself raised this specific of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Act. Having itself raised this specific plea/exception, the onus to substantiate the same, by leading cogent evidence plea/exception, the onus to substantiate the same, by leading cogent evidence plea/exception, the onus to substantiate the same, by leading cogent evidence plea/exception, the onus to substantiate the same, by leading cogent evidence as to the actual nature of duties discharged by respondent No.2, would as to the actual nature of duties discharged by respondent No.2, wo as to the actual nature of duties discharged by respondent No.2, wo as to the actual nature of duties discharged by respondent No.2, wo management, in whose possession the necessarily lie upon the petitioner-management, in whose possession the management, in whose possession the necessarily lie upon the petitioner relevant service record and job particulars of respondent No.2 lie. The relevant service record and job particulars of respondent No.2 lie. The relevant service record and job particulars of respondent No.2 lie. The relevant service record and job particulars of respondent No.2 lie. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, being judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, being judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, being judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, being putes as to the very fact of engagement, are rendered in the context of disputes as to the very fact of engagement, are putes as to the very fact of engagement, are rendered in the context of dis clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case, and were rightly clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case, and were rightly clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case, and were rightly clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case, and were rightly distinguished by the learned Tribunal. distinguished by the learned Tribunal. (5) t also deserves notice that the impugned order Be that as it may, it also deserves notice that the impugned order t also deserves notice that the impugned order tory order regulating the course of trial. The learned is merely an interlocutory order regulating the course of trial. The learned tory order regulating the course of trial. The learned is merely an interlocu Tribunal has neither finally determined the status of respondent No.2 as a Tribunal has neither finally determined the status of respondent No.2 as a Tribunal has neither finally determined the status of respondent No.2 as a Tribunal has neither finally determined the status of respondent No.2 as a “workman” nor adjudicated the rights and liabilities of the parties. The order “workman” nor adjudicated the rights and liabilities of the parties. The order “workman” nor adjudicated the rights and liabilities of the parties. The order “workman” nor adjudicated the rights and liabilities of the parties. The order ular issue, leaving the parties at only apportions the burden of proof on a particular issue, leaving the parties at only apportions the burden of proof on a partic only apportions the burden of proof on a partic liberty to lead their respective evidence. No substantive right of either party liberty to lead their respective evidence. No substantive right of either party liberty to lead their respective evidence. No substantive right of either party liberty to lead their respective evidence. No substantive right of either party stands conclusively determined by the impugned order. Interference under stands conclusively determined by the impugned order. Interference under stands conclusively determined by the impugned order. Interference under stands conclusively determined by the impugned order. Interference under Articles 226 at such an interlocutory stage is therefore unwarranted, Articles 226 at such an interlocutory stage is therefore unwarranted Articles 226 at such an interlocutory stage is therefore unwarranted Articles 226 at such an interlocutory stage is therefore unwarranted particularly when the petitioner shall have full opportunity to establish its plea particularly when the petitioner shall have full opportunity to establish its plea particularly when the petitioner shall have full opportunity to establish its plea particularly when the petitioner shall have full opportunity to establish its plea before the learned Tribunal at an appropriate stage. before the learned Tribunal at an appropriate stage. before the learned Tribunal at an appropriate stage. CWP-13535 13535-2026 -4- (6) In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition and the In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition and the In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. same is hereby dismissed. (7) miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, are also Civil miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, are also miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, are also disposed of. disposed of. , 2026 July 14, 2026 SwarnjitS (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : : Whether reportable Yes/No Yes/No