IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.02.2010 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.4045 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010 1 M.SIKANDAR BASHA [PETITIONER] Vs 1 THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, COIMBATORE. 2 THE MANAGEMENT OF COIMBATORE MURUGAN MILLS UNIT OF NTC (T&P) LTD POST BOX NO.7001 METTUPALAYAM ROAD COIMBATORE-641 043. [RESPONDENTS] Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 14.11.2006 in I.A.No.404/2006 in I.D.No.445/2001, quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to decide the legal effect and validity of the petitioner's dismissal made in contravention of Section 33(2)(b) of I.D.Act as a preliminary issue and to decide the same in a time bound manner after giving the petitioner opportunity to let in both oral and documentary evidence with regard to the violation of Section 33(2)(b) of I.D.Act, award costs For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose O R D E R It is the most unfortunate case where a dispute relates to non-employment of the petitioner workman pending from the year 2001 onwards. Curiously the petitioner after filing a Claim Petition before the Labour Court also raised an additional contention that his dismissal was void ab initio. This was in view of the fact though no approval petition was filed by the 2nd respondent management in a case pending before the Special https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Industrial Tribunal, where a dispute relating to textile workmen and the textile management was pending. The petitioner raised the said issue in his claim statement and thereafter filed an Interim Application in I.A.No.404 of 2006 before the Labour Court after 5 years to decide the issue relating to contravention of Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act as a preliminary issue. The Labour Court after notice to the 2nd respondent decided the said issue against the workman. 2. Though Mr.Ajay Khose, learned counsel for the petitioner workman contended that the finding rendered by the Labour Cour was erroneous and contrary to the laws of this land, this Court is not willing to go into the question at this stage as it is only a preliminary finding against the workman and the main dispute is yet to be determined by the Labour Court. 3. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court vide its judgment in the Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P.Mundhe reported in AIR 1975 SC 1900 in paragraph 22 has held as follows: "But when the matter is in controversy between the parties, that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the Labour Court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue. We should also make it clear that there will be 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 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." 4. Ultimately if the workman loses a case in the main Industrial Dispute, he can always have an opportunity to challenge even the preliminary finding rendered by the Labour Court. It is not as if the petitioner has no remedy. But, it is rather unfortunate though that under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, it has been stipulated that in case of non- employment, the matter should be disposed of within three months, in the present case, the dispute is yet to be disposed of even after a period of 9 years. It is rather sorry state of affairs and the petitioner should not be allowed to add further delay on the said issue. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge in case the main Award goes against the petitioner even the present issue. Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar ajr To 1 THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT COIMBATORE. + 1 cc to Mr.V.Ajoy Khose,Advocate,SR.13014 W.P.No.4045 of 2010 TEJ(CO) EM/5.3.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/