Labour Court Stays Termination Pending Decision On ‘Workman’ Status

The Labour Court at Aurangabad, in the case of Anil Rustumrao Ghode v M/s Som Autotech Pvt Ltd., Complainant No. 18 of 2024 dated 16 January 2026, has granted interim protection to a terminated employee by staying the operation of the termination order, pending final adjudication of the complaint. The case arises from a challenge to the termination of a Junior Officer (Stores), who alleged that his services were terminated illegally without following the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, including notice and retrenchment compensation.

The employer contested the maintainability of the complaint, arguing that the employee was working in a supervisory and administrative capacity, and therefore did not qualify as a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act or as an “employee” under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The employer also relied on past experience and job responsibilities to support this claim.

While the Court noted that the issue of whether the complainant is a “workman” goes to the root of jurisdiction and must be decided after evidence, it found a prima facie lapse in the manner of termination. The termination was affected without prior notice or notice pay, contrary to the conditions mentioned in the appointment letter.

Balancing the equities, the Court held that granting reinstatement at the interim stage would amount to final relief, which was not justified before deciding the workman-status issue. However, it ruled that allowing the termination to operate unchecked would cause undue hardship to the complainant. Accordingly, the Court stayed the termination order dated 28 May 2024, while declining reinstatement at this stage.

This order reinforces the principle that procedural fairness in termination matters is critical, and that even where an employer disputes workman status, courts may intervene to prevent irreversible harm until the issue is conclusively decided.