* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C.) No. 9208/2009 and C.M. No. 12566/2009 (for stay) % Date of Decision: 09th October, 2009 # VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL ..... PETITIONER ! Through: Mr. R.P. Sharma , Advocate. VERSUS $ M/S D.D. INDUSTRIES LIMITED .....RESPONDENT ^ Through: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate. CORAM: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL 1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The workman Mr. Vijay Kumar Agarwal in this writ petition seeks to challenge an interlocutory order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the Labour Court dismissing his application under Rule 15 of the the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 for summoning Mr. Naresh Aggarwal and Mr. R.P. Khurana (both officials of the management) to examine them on the point of service of charge-sheet dated 08.09.2005 and also regarding records of assigning the work/duties for the year 2005-06. 2. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.P. Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration, (1983) 4 SCC 293, this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against an interlocutory order is not maintainable. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case is extracted below: “It was just the other day that we were bemoaning the W.P.(C) No.9208/2009 Page 1 of 3 unbecoming devices adopted by certain employers to avoid decision of industrial disputes on merits. We noticed how they would raise various preliminary objections, invite decision on those objections in the first instance, carry the matter to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and delay a decision of the real dispute for years, sometimes for over a decade. Industrial peace, one presumes, hangs in the balance in the meanwhile. We have now before us a case where a dispute originating in 1969 and referred for adjudication by the Government to the Labour Court in 1970 is still at the stage of decision on a preliminary objection. There was a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy to decide preliminary issues first. But the time appears to have arrived for a reversal of that policy. We think it is better that tribunals, particularly those entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where delay may lead to misery and jeopardise industrial peace, should decide all issues in dispute at the same time without trying some of them as preliminary issues. Nor should High Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution stop proceedings before a Tribunal so that a preliminary issue may be decided by them. Neither the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution nor the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 may be allowed to be exploited by those who can well afford to wait to the detriment of those who can ill afford to wait by dragging the latter from Court to Court for adjudication of peripheral issues, avoiding decision on issues more vital to them. Article 226 and Article 136 are not meant to be used to break the resistance of workmen in this fashion. Tribunals and Courts who are requested to decide preliminary questions must therefore ask themselves whether such threshold part- adjudication is really necessary and whether it will not lead to other woeful consequences. After all tribunals like Industrial Tribunals are constituted to decide expeditiously special kinds of disputes and their jurisdiction to so decide is not to be stifled by all manner of preliminary objections journeying up and down. It is also worthwhile remembering that the nature of the jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate while that under Article 136 is primarily supervisory but the Court may exercise all necessary appellate powers to do substantial justice. In the exercise of such jurisdiction neither the High Court nor this Court is required to be too astute to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by special tribunals at interlocutory stages and on preliminary issues.” 3. In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this writ petition filed by the workman against an interlocutory order is not maintainable. Even otherwise, I have gone through the impugned interim order of the Labour Court and on going through the same, I find no illegality or perversity in the said order because the inquiry issue has already been decided by the Court below against the workman. W.P.(C) No.9208/2009 Page 2 of 3 4. In view of the foregoing, this writ petition is dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed. OCTOBER 09, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J 'BSR' W.P.(C) No.9208/2009 Page 3 of 3