1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi WRIT PETITION NO. 355 OF 2010. M/s. Nitco Roadways Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner. v/s. Roshan A. Gilani. ..Respondent. .... Mr. V.P. Vaidya, for Petitioner. Mr. Mohankumar K.R., for Respondent. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 22TH FEBRUARY 2010. P.C. By this writ petition, the petitioner company has impugned, the Part-I award passed by the Tenth Labour Court, Mumbai dated 25th March 2009 to the extent that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse, and also the order dated 19th November 2009 dismissing Review Application (IDA) No.3 of 2009, filed by the petitioner. 2. In the instant case, a show cause notice dated 5th March 2003 was issued to the respondent workman alleging mis- appropriation of company’s funds during illegal strike, dis- obedience of order of company, to go to New Delhi and Absenteeism. After receiving a reply from the respondent, a 2 charge sheet was issued to the respondent on 4th April 2003 and a domestic enquiry was held against the respondent during the period 29th April 2003 to 30th October 2003. On 11th December 2003, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the respondent guilty of the charges against him and on 28th January 2004 an order dismissing the respondent, was passed by the petitioner. The respondent therefore, raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Tenth Labour Court, Mumbai. On 25th March 2009, the Tenth Labour Court, Mumbai, passed Part-I award holding the enquiry to be fair and proper but the findings of the Enquiry Officer perverse. The petitioner company filed a review application which was rejected by the Labour Court by its order dated 19th November 2009. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the Part-I award to the extent that the findings of finding of the Enquiry Officer, are perverse as well as the order dismissing the review application. 3. In the above writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that pending the hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, further proceedings in Reference (IDA) No.266 of 2006 be stayed. Since there is no stay on the order dated 25th March 2009, the Labour Court had already proceeded with Reference (IDA) No. 3 266 of 2006. In fact, the petitioner company has already filed evidence of its witness and the cross-examination of the petitioner’s witness is also fixed on 25th February 2010. 4. In the case of Cooper Engineering Limited and Shri P.P. Mundhe, reported in 1975(31) FLR 188, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has inter-alia held - “21. ......................................... We should also make it clear that there will be no 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 also be 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.” 5. Relying on the aforestated decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court in the case of Assistant Engineer, Lower Vena Canal, Nagpur and Others v/s. Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur and Others, reported in 2003 (97) FLR, 770 has held as follows :- “Once a decision on the preliminary point is given, no review, revision or writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, should be entertained against the judgment and order pertaining to preliminary issue. The rights of parties to pursue such remedies have been specifically curtailed by the Apex Court in the interest of speedy justice and because the 4 parties concerned have appropriate remedy after the final and complete adjudication of the industrial dispute in question.” 6. In the case of M.S.R.T.C. vs. Nanuram Mohanlal Verma and Another, reported in 2002(1) L.L.N. 913 (Bombay), it is observed and held by this Court as follows :- “................................Effective and quick settlement of industrial dispute is extremely essential for the good industrial climate and in order to achieve all these objectives, procedure for framing preliminary issue for testing the validity of departmental enquiry is evolved and if parties are allowed to stall proceedings at the interlocutory stage, then the very purpose could be frustrated. Hence in order to bring about tangible results in this regard, it would be just and proper to refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226 or Art. 227 of the Constitution of India at such interlocutory stage and on preliminary issue.” 7. As set out hereinabove since the Tenth Labour Court has in Part-I award held that the findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse, the petitioner company has an opportunity to lead evidence and prove otherwise. The petitioner company has already filed evidence of its witness and the cross-examination of the said witness is also fixed on 25th February 2010. Any interference at this stage by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall cause undue delay in adjudication of Reference (IDA) No.266 of 2006, which is already in progress. 5 This will also cause grave prejudice to the respondent workman who has been dismissed from his employment since the last more than six years. No prejudice will be caused to the petitioner company who has already filed the evidence of its witness and whose cross-examination is fixed on 25th February 2010. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]