IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1864/2008 Hindustan Unilever Limited PETITIONER VS. A.R.A.Shaikh RESPONDENT Mr.C.U.Singh with Mr.R.N.Singh with Mr.Mahesh Londhe i/b M/s Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the petitioner Ms.Jane Cox for respondent no.1 CORAM : S.A.BOBDE , J. DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER,2008. P.C. 1] This is a writ petition challenging a Part I award rendered by the Industrial Tribunal in Approval Application u/s 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act . 2] The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it would not be proper exercise of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition challenging a Part I award where the Industrial Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the enquiry was not conducted fairly and properly and having regard to the law led down by the Supreme Court the employer has full opportunity to lead evidence to prove the workman's alleged misconduct in this case. 3] The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the preliminary objection raised by the respondent deserves to be rejected 2 in this case because not only this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition but this is a fit case for exercise of such jurisdiction . According to the learned counsel the Industrial Tribunal has erroneously held enquiry to be unfair and improper.The Industrial Tribunal ought to have seen that enough opportunity was given to the respondent to cross examine the petitioner's witness which is one of the grounds upheld by the Industrial Tribunal and further the Industrial Tribunal could not have validly observed that the enquiry is unfair only because the Enquiry Officer has also acted as witness. 4] Both the petitioner and respondent have cited decisions in support of their contentions. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on :- [1] The Cooper Engineering Limited Vs.Shri.P.P. Mundhe (1975) 2 Supreme Court Cases 661. [2] Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs.Shri.Nanuram Verma and others ,2001 LAB I.C.1536. [3] Development Credit Bank Ltd. Vs. Azim A. Charanta,2000 LAB I.C. 2757. [4] Assistant Engineer ,Lower Vena Canal Nagpur & Ors.Vs.Member,Industrial Court,Nagpur & Ors., 2003 I CLR 986 5] Mr.Singh ,learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 3 judgment of Single Judge in a case of Indian Hotels Company Ltd.Bombay Vs.Bhaniram P.Chunera and another,2000(1) Mh. L. J.and judgment of Division Bench in the same case in LPA No.98/2002 dated 14/6/2002 upholding the judgment of learned Single Judge . The learned counsel further relied on judgment of learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3125/2006 dated 31/1/2007 and another judgment in a case of Mahindra and Mahindra Vs.Suryabhan Avhad ,2007(6) Mh.L.J. 436. 6] It is not necessary for the present decision to analyse the ratio of each decisioncited on behalf of the contending parties.The upshot is that the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India is available to the petitioner. However, whether this Court will exercise this jurisdiction would depend on the view of this Court apart from the magnitude of error committed by the Industrial Tribunal , on the consequence of interfering at the stage of part I award. That is to say, if the Court is of the view that interference at this stage would protract the proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal ,it would not do so. The Supreme Court in The Cooper Engineering Limited Vs.Shri.P.P.Mundhe (1975) 2 Supreme Court Cases 661) observed in para 22 as follows. ''We should also make it clear that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the labour court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter,if 4 worthy,can be agitated even after the final award .It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage.We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication.'' The reason for the above observations obviously to ensure that the Industrial Tribunal proceeds with all the aspects of the matter before it without any obstruction and completly adjudicates it. 7] In the present case the approval application has been pending before the Industrial Tribunal for the last seven years .The Industrial Tribunal has only delivered Part -I award . In accordance with law the petitioner/employer would have right to lead evidence to prove the misconduct before the Court and eventually if the matter is decided against the petitioner the right to challenge both part I and II award is intact. On the other hand if this Court interferes at this stage the usual possibilities of the matter being carried through hierarchy of Courts while the matter remains pending before the Industrial Tribunal for delivery of Part II award. In these circumstances I am of the view that it would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal on this count alone. In these circumstances there is no reason to consider the merits of the order of Industrial Tribunal . 8] For foregoing reasons the Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All the contentions of the parties are left open. (S.A.BOBDE,J.)