AGK IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.825 OF 2008 PETITION NO.825 OF 2008 PETITION NO.825 OF 2008 Air Works India Engineering Pvt Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus. Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh and Another ...Respondents Shri A.D.Shetty for the Petitioner. Shri N.M.Ganguly, Govt Pleader for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 07th April, 2008. : 07th April, 2008. : 07th April, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The petitioner-employer who is the first party in a reference before Industrial Tribunal has challenged the order dated 11th December, 2007 passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay on an application Exhibit C-10. 2. The petitioner had taken out the said application praying for framing and deciding the draft issues dated 01st October, 2007 filed by the petitioner as preliminary issues. By the impugned judgment and order, the Industrial Tribunal has framed the issues as prayed by the petitioner. However, the Tribunal has declined to treat the issues as preliminary issues. 3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing : 2 : 2 : 2 : for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has not given any reasons for rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner for trying the said issues as preliminary issues. He submitted that the evidence in the present case will be voluminous and therefore, it was necessary that atleast first and second issues should have been tried as preliminary issues. He invited my attention to relevant portion of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.P.Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration and others (1983 LAB.I.C.1629) and submitted that on the basis of what is observed by the Apex Court, the prayer made by the petitioner for treating the first two issues as preliminary issues could not have been rejected. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The Reference in which the impugned order has been passed is of the year 1999. The impugned order has been passed on 03rd November, 2007 by which issues as suggested by the petitioners have been framed. The Tribunal has exercised discretion by not treating the issues as preliminary issues in the Reference of the year 1999. It will be necessary to refer to what is observed by the Apex Court in the case of D.P.Maheshwari (supra). In paragraph No.1 the Apex Court has observed thus: "...We think it is better that tribunals, : 3 : 3 : 3 : particularly those entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where delay may lead to misery and jeopardise industrial peace, should decide all issues in dispute at the same time without trying some of them as preliminary issues. Nor should High Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution stop proceedings before a Tribunals so that a preliminary issue may be decided by them. Neither the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution nor the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.136 may be allowed to be exploited by those who can well afford to wait to the detriment of those who can ill afford to wait by dragging the latter from Court to Court for adjudication of peripheral issues, avoiding decision on issues more vital to them. Art.226 and Art.136 are not meant to be used to break the resistance of workmen in this fashion." 5. Considering what is stated aforesaid, no case is made out for interference in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition is therefore rejected. No orders as to costs. : 4 : 4 : 4 : (A.S.Oka, (A.S.Oka, (A.S.Oka, J) J) J)