1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 201 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5678 OF 2009 Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. .. Appellant Vs Smt. Rukhmani S.Awale & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri J.P. Cama, Sr. Counsel, i/by Shri G.D. Talreja for the Appellant. Shri S.N. Deshpande for Respondent No.7. Shri Jaiprakash Savant for Respondent No.11. Ms Jyoti Jethani for Respondent No.13. Ms Rebeca Dias for Respondent No.21. -- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. By an order dated 21st April, 2009, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai, has framed the issues including Issue No.4 relating to the claim being barred by limitation. According to the Appellant, some of the issues can be tried as preliminary issues, and therefore, this order has been challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.2528 of 2007 where the learned Single Judge vide order dated 3rd July, 2008 had directed that the draft issues tendered shall be framed as the issues for consideration and it was open to the authority concerned to treat the said issues as 2 common issues in all cases and the pleas in that behalf were kept open. After the matter was sent back to the authority concerned, it again felt that the issues could be tried together and refused to consider the challenge to the jurisdiction and other issues as preliminary issues in the first instance. Instead, by order dated 27th April, 2009, it decided to try all issues together, which order came to be challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.5678 of 2009. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 27th July, 2009 dismissed the said Writ Petition and felt that in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.P. Maheswari and Delhi Administration and others, reported in 1983 II LLJ 425 all issues be tried together. Accordingly, it directed the Controlling Authority to try all the issues together and ensure that the proceedings come to an end at the earliest. 2. The learned Single Judge, while exercising discretion and in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that even the issue of limitation is also a mixed question of fact and law, directed the Controlling Authority to decide the issues together and as the proceedings have already been pending for a considerable period. Accordingly, it directed the Authority to proceed on that basis expeditiously and dismissed the Writ Petition. In our view, no 3 fault can be found with the approach of the learned Single Judge in the fact situation of the present case. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity much less manifest error. 3. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. The Appeal accordingly stands dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J