IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7121 of 2000 Date of decision: 30.07.2009 Orient Fans through Proprietor Orient Papers & ....Petitioner Industries Limited. versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad ...Respondents and others. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Kathuria, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 6. --- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J. 1. A reference to the Labour Court, Faridabad to adjudicate on the validity of the termination order passed by the Domestic Tribunal met with its first stumbling block by a preliminary adjudication made by the Labour Court that the proceedings before the Domestic Tribunal had been vitiated. The Tribunal after disposing of preliminary adjudication on 22.11.1999 directed the matter for further evidence on 14.01.2000. The management was aggrieved at the preliminary adjudication and has approached the Court under Article 226 and unfortunately stopped the proceedings of all these years by challenging the decision rendered by the Labour Court. The objection by the workman had been actually on the ground that the Presenting Officer for the management was Civil Writ Petition No.7121 of 2000 - 2 - incidentally the father of the Enquiry Officer and he was legal adviser for the management and there was a clear personal bias in favour of the management that betrayed a complete lack of fairness and impartiality. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the management relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Management of Thanjavur Textiles Ltd. Versus B. Purushotham & others-1999 ILLJ 169, which held that an advocate of the Company which had been appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the alleged misconduct of the employees could competently act and it was held that such an Enquiry Officer had at all times the normal powers of an Enquiry Officer including the power to give findings as to misconduct of the employees. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the workman had different objections to the intervention sought by the management at the preliminary stage on a different footing and in my view, correctly so. He relied on the decision in D.P.Maheshwari Versus Delhi Admn and others-AIR 1984 Supreme Court 153, that held that the Tribunals entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where delay may lead to misery and jeopardize industrial peace, should decide all issues in disputes at the same time without trying some of them as preliminary issues. Nor should High Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, stop proceedings before a Tribunal so that a preliminary issue may be decided by them. Neither the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution nor the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 may be allowed to be exploited by those who can well afford to wait to the detriment of Civil Writ Petition No.7121 of 2000 - 3 - those who can ill afford to wait, by dragging the latter from Court to Court for adjudication of peripheral issues. The learned counsel relied on The Cooper Engineering Ltd. Versus P.P. Mundhe-AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1900¸ that held that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee was referred for adjudication, the Court shall decide a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry had violated the principle of natural justice. 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 would be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at that stage. In Jethabhai Khatau & Co. Versus Luxmi Narayan Cotton Mills Ltd. and others-(1981) 3 Supreme Court Cases 61, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to a general principle that even the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall not normally interfere in the interim orders of stay when the issues relating to the merits of the case had not been fully addressed by final adjudication. 4. The writ petition is wholly unjustified. The management was bound to participate in the proceedings and let in evidence if it thought necessary to support its ultimate finding regarding the justification for removal of the workman for alleged misconduct. It would have been always possible for the management to contend even at the time of final rendering of its adjudication that the enquiry had been conducted properly and even the decision by the Enquiry Officer had been fully supported by reasons and justified. The justification for the Civil Writ Petition No.7121 of 2000 - 4 - fairness and propriety of the Domestic Tribunal could have been again supported by the management even after the adjudication made by the Labour Tribunal on all issues at an appropriate time of challenge before this Court after the final adjudication had been made. By merely prolonging the writ petition before this Court at the preliminary stage, nine valuable years have elapsed for the workman who could ill-afford being kept at bay. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with cost which is assessed at Rs.25,000/- against the management payable to the workman. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court and it is requested that the Labour Court dispose of the reference within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the records and report the same to this Court after the conclusion of the adjudication. The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 11.08.2009. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 30.07.2009 sanjeev