Point of Law: An ‘order’ obviously cannot include mere procedural orders of adjournment, admission of writ, summoning of documents or witnesses, or directing local inspection etc. which orders do not seriously affect the rights of the parties

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved by the common interim order dated 15.07.2021 rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) Nos. 12838 and 12917 of 2021, the appellants herein, who are respondents 2 and 3 in the former W.P. (C) and respondents 4 to 6 in the latter W.P. (C) have preferred these intra-court appeals under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.

2. Heard Sri. J.P. Cama, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri. Benny P. Thomas, learned Standing Counsel for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. appearing for the appellants, Sri. P.J. Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in the former case, Sri. C.S. Ajith Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the latter W.P. (C) and Sri. P. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the other respondents, who have been additionally impleaded as respondents in the latter W.P. (C).

3. The impugned order has been rendered by the learned Single Judge on 15.07.2021 at the admission stage, wherein it has been held that the writ petitioners have made out a case for admitting the writ petitions and that, in view of the prima facie nature of the case disclosed and to ensure the preservation of the subject matter of the lis, it has been ordered that the proceedings in pursuance of clause 2(iii) of the impugned Ext.P-6 circular including the exclusion of workmen eligible under the long term settlement scheme from the post retirement medical benefit scheme and the transfer of funds to the National Pension Scheme in terms of the said clause 2(iii) shall stand deferred and that too, for a period of two months. The appellants would point out that they have argued a strong case that the writ petitions itself are not maintainable, as essentially the pleas in the writ proceedings would amount to enforcement of a long term settlement, which in the nature of things, has to be adjudicated in terms of the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act and that therefore, writ petitions of this nature are not maintainable. In that regard, it is also urged by the appellants that clause 50 of Ext.R2(a) Long Term Settlement would make it clear that if there is any dispute regarding the implementation of the said settlement or interpretation of any of its provisions, the parties will have to try to sort out their differences through mutual discussion, failing which they shall resort to the machinery prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, etc.

4. Per contra, the learned Advocates appearing on the other side would strongly urge that, going by the peculiar nature of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned action of the appellants in terms of clause 2(iii) of Ext.P6 circular would amount to blatant violation of clause 42 of the Long Term Settlement dealing with retirement benefits and other applicable norms in the matter. It is also strongly urged by the learned Advocates appearing for the writ petitioners that if no interdiction is made with the impugned provisions at least pending adjudication of the matters in terms of the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, then practically the matter will become infructuous by the inexorable events that may quickly happen in the course of time and that therefore, writ intervention is highly necessary in this case in the interest of justice and equity. Various other contentions have also been made on both sides.

5. After hearing both sides, we are of the firm view that there is no necessity for us to examine these rival pleas at this stage for the simple reason that the impugned interim order has been rendered by the learned Single Judge on 15.07.2021 only at the admission stage while admitting the writ petitions and ordering that the impugned proceedings shall stand deferred only for a period of two months, pending consideration of the interim reliefs. In other words, the pleas for interim reliefs sought for by the writ petitioners has not been disposed of by the learned Single Ju