G. PATRI BASAVANA GOUD, J.

( 1 ) THE learned High Court Government Advocate takes notice for 1st respondent. 2nd respondent appears in person.

( 2 ) BY consent of both sides, the matter is heard and is being disposed of finally at this stage.

( 3 ) THE petitioner-employer manufactures valves, and the 2nd respondent-workman, a Science Graduate, had been working as a Quality Assistant.

( 4 ) THE 2nd respondent-workman is now dismissed from service. The order of dismissal had been preceded by four separate enquiries in respect of four different charges, in all of which, the workman was found guilty. The disciplinary authority, having accepted the said findings on proof of charge, has passed the order of dismissal. In that regard, the 2nd respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute before the labour Court, Mysore, by filing an application under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('act' for short ). On the preliminary questions as to validity of the domestic enquiries, the Labour Court, by its order dated 18-9-1997 at annexure-E, held all the four enquiries as invalid. The said order at Annexure-E is now sought to be quashed in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner-employer.

( 5 ) ). The 2nd respondent-workman, at the out set, submits that, taking recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution for challenging an order on a preliminary issue like the one at annexure-E is impermissible, such a practice having been strongly deprecated by the Supreme Court in D. P. Maheshwari v delhi Administration and Others. It is true that the Supreme court has strongly deprecated the tendency on the part of the employer therein repeatedly dragging the workman concerned to higher forums by raising preliminary objections, so much so that, thirteen years after the reference of the dispute for adjudication, the matter was still at the stage of consideration of the preliminary question. The Supreme Court also found it necessary to point out that, there was a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy to decide preliminary issues first, but that the time appeared to have arrived for a reversal of that policy, and that Tribunals, 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 Article 226 of the Constitution, stop proceedings before the concerned labour forum. It however needs to be pointed out that, the Supreme court was seriously agitated on the facts of that particular case on account of the repeated attempts that the employer had been making in frustrating the adjudication of the dispute. There was, however, another occasion wherein the Supreme Court did consider interference even at the stage of preliminary issue, where the matter involved consideration of a question as to whether the workman has a right to be represented by an advocate in a domestic enquiry. That was in Harinarayan srivastav v United Commercial Bank and Another , From the body of the judgment, it appears that the matter had reached the Supreme Court at the stage of consideration of the preliminary issue itself and while the main dispute was still pending adjudication before the labour forum. The question that had arisen therein was, whether workman concerned had a right to be represented by an Advocate as had been contended by the workman. The Supreme Court referred to para 19. 12 of the bipartite Settlement which permitted the workman to defend himself with the assistance of an Advocate as one of the options. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court found on facts that the allegations were very simple and were not complicated, and that, in the circumstances, failure to permit the workman to engage an Advocate was not violative of principles of natural justi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document