1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10421 OF 2011 DFS India Pvt. Ltd. Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Terminal 2C, Airside, Arrival Level, Sahar, Mumbai 400 099 ...Petitioner Versus Mr.Nandkumar G. Chavan, M-906, Bhoomi Breexe, Raheja Estate, Kulupwadi, Borivli (E), Mumbai 400 066 ...Respondent Mr.R.V.Paranjpe for the Petitioner Mr.A.K.Jalisatgi for the Respondent CORAM:- A.V.NIRGUDE J. DATED:- 2nd DECEMBER, 2011. ORAL ORDER. 1. By consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondent waives notice. 4. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging two interim orders passed by the learned Presiding Officer CGIT-2, Mumbai in Reference CGIT No2-22 of 2010. The respondent apparently was an employee of the petitioner company. The litigation pertains to the respondent’s 2 dismissal. The reference, as indicated above came before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, sometime in 2010 and the petitioner company filed their written statement also. Rather belatedly they moved their application for deciding the dispute on the basis of preliminary issue which they raised in their written statement. They asserted that the court would not have jurisdiction because the respondent is not a workman as he alleged. The learned Judge refused to decide the reference only on the preliminary issue and held that he would decide the reference by giving finding on all issues. The second impugned order was passed on the petitioner’s application seeking amendment to the written statement. The questions that arose for my consideration in this writ petition are: (i) Whether the petitioner company is required to deal with para nos.11 and 12 of the respondent’s statement of claim? (ii) Whether the issue relating to the status of the respondent should be decided as preliminary issue? 5. POINT NO.1 Going through the factual aspects of the case, I found that in May 2009 the respondent was dismissed from service and thereafter the parties for some time were engaged in conciliation proceedings before the Competent Authority. It is also stated by the respondent in his statement of claim that the Union, on his behalf tried to bring about some settlement, but the petitioner company refused to co- operate. Now, the petitioner company wants to deal with this allegation in the proposed amendment. The allegation made by the respondent in his statement of claim in para nos.11 and 12 are mainly 3 in respect of the events that took place after the termination order was passed. In other words, about the events that took place after the cause of action for the reference arose. What happened between the parties after the termination of the respondent is virtually not relevant for deciding this case and so the petitioner company had no reason to take allegations made in paragraph nos.11 and 12 seriously. Indeed, they did not take them seriously when they filed their written statement. In the written statement they ignored these allegations by stating that such allegations are denied without specifically dealing with the same. In paragraph no.11 the respondent also asserted that prior to termination order, the Union had sent a letter to the petitioner company in respect of several Unfair Labour Practices and the company ignored it. This allegation is so vague that it would make no difference to the outcome of this litigation. Apparently, this allegation is not in respect of the respondent/his conduct/ his possible termination etc. 6. The status of the respondent is certainly the bone of contention between the parties. It is settled law that in exceptional cases, the dispute can be resolved on the basis of the preliminary issue. Even in this case, such an issue is raised. Besides, there is nothing exceptional in this case so as to permit the Tribunal to decide this issue first. 7. Both the impugned orders are unassailable and the writ petition should therefore fail. Hence, petition is dismissed. (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.)