PVR 1 LPA 94/08 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.94 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9264 OF 2007 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2008 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.94 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9264 OF 2007 M/s.V.V.F.Ltd. ....Appellant vs. 1.Shri.Dashrath Ramdular Saroj and Another. ...Respondents --- Mr.J.P.Cama, Sr.Advocate i/b. Mr.P.C.Pavaskar, for Appellant. Mr.Vinod Shetty, for Respondent no.1. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR,JJ. DATED: 13th August, 2010 PVR 2 LPA 94/08 P.C.: 1. The appeal is not on board for final hearing. By consent of parties, the appeal is taken on record for final hearing. 2. By this appeal, the Appellant takes exception to the order dated 29.1.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition no.9264 of 2007. That petition was directed against Part-I of the Award dated 4.8.2007 passed by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No.165 of 2001 holding that the departmental inquiry held against the Respondents is not fair and proper and that the findings are perverse. The learned Single Judge relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D.P.Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration & Ors., (1983)4 SCC 293 has held that it will not be proper to entertain the petition against Part-I of the Award and has rejected the petition. It is that order which is under challenge. PVR 3 LPA 94/08 3. Mr.Cama, the learned Counsel appearing for appellant took us through the record. He submits that the Labour Court in his Award has merely recorded the conclusions and has not given any reasons for recording those conclusions. He submits that there were three inquiries involved. Perusal of the finding in Part-I of the Award contained in paragraph 14 in the Award which is impugned before the learned Single Judge, one does not understand, as to according to the Labour Court which inquiry officer is biased and as to which inquiry those observations are related. The learned Counsel submits that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse, and therefore, the learned Single Judge should have entertained the petition. He relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition no.5 of 2007 decided on 5.3.2007 in the case Mahindra & Mahindra Vs. Suryabahn Avhad to contend that in proper cases petition against Part-I of the Award can be PVR 4 LPA 94/08 entertained. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1. We find that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in declining to entertain the petition against Part I of the Award. The Supreme Court in its judgment in the case The Cooper Engineering Ltd. Vs. Shri.P.P.Mundhe, 1975(3) F.L.R. page 188 in paragraph 21 has observed thus:- 21. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the labour court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer, there will be no difficulty. 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 fore 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 no justification for any PVR 5 LPA 94/08 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. Perusal of the above observations of the Supreme Court shows that according to the Supreme Court it is prudent and also in the interest of justice that the High Court does not entertain the petition against Part-I of the Award because Part I of the Award can be challenged by the employer if it is against the employer while challenging Part-II of the Award, if such an occasion arises. It is also possible that ultimately it may not be necessary for the employer who is aggrieved by Part I of the Award to challenge Part I of the Award at all, because in the final conclusion Part II of the Award may be made ultimately in favour of the employer. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in declining to entertain the challenge PVR 6 LPA 94/08 to Part I of the Award. At this stage, we do not see that it would be appropriate to disturb the order of the learned Single Judge. It is made clear that neither the learned Single Judge nor we have said anything on merits about the correctness or otherwise of the findings recorded in part I of the Award, that is left open to be challenged, if necessary, by the appellant if the findings in Part II of the Award goes against him. Appeal is disposed of. Civil application no.108 of 2008 is also disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (R.G.KETKAR,J.) ...