IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.224 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3873 OF 2006 M/s. Bhor Industries Limited ... Appellant Vs Mr. D.D. Parab and others ... Respondents Mr. V.P. Sawant with N.R. Patankar for the appellant. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & S.A. BOBDE , J. DATE : 14TH NOVEMBER , 2008 P.C.: In a pending reference IDA No.296 of 2002, the present appellant has filed an application for framing of preliminary issue in regard to the maintainability of reference and further prayed that the said issue be decided independently at the first instance. This application was dismissed by the Labour Court and it relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and others (AIR 1984 SC 153). Correction of this order was challenged in writ petition No.3873 of 2006 by the appellant. The writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 7th August, 2006 wherein the court had directed the Labour Court to frame and decide the preliminary issue alongwith other issues and parties to lead common evidence on all the issues. Dissatisfied from this order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 2. Firstly, we are of the considered view that the present appeal itself is not maintainable as the order passed by the learned Single Judge, prima facie, does not fall within the ambit of being a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the Letters Patent as it is a mere procedural direction and it has not determined or decided finally or otherwise the rights of the parties. Be that as it may, even otherwise, it is in the interest of parties concerned that evidence is commonly led on all issues and if the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction as the reference was not maintainable before the court it would decide itself. Accordingly, no prejudice would be caused to the present appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the settlement alleged to have been executed between the parties at Exhibit `A' to the writ petition and contends that the workmen had withdrawn the complete benefits under the settlement and after such payments ceased to be workmen. This position is not admitted as the reference has been made on question of dismissal of the workmen. Even on merits, we are of the view that opinion expressed by the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error of law or facts. While declining to interfere in the impugned orders, we grant liberty to the appellant to make a request to the Labour Court for dealing with the matter expeditiously and after such a request is made, the Labour Court to do the needful. Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE, J.