High Court should not entertain writ petitions against Labour Court's findings on preliminary issues, as it may delay adjudication and frustrate the purpose of deciding preliminary issues.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Allahabad, respondent No. 1, deciding three issues as preliminary issues.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the petitioner initiated domestic enquiry against respondent no. 2. He filed Suit No. 835 of 1995 before VII Additional Civil Judge. West, Allahabad, challenging the validity of constitution of Enquiry Committee. He also prayed restraining the petitioner from his smooth working. The trial court did not grant any injunction staying the enquiry proceedings. He filed another application for injunction and the Court passed an order that in pursuance of the enquiry report, no further action shall be taken against him. The petitioner filed appeals against the order passed by the trial court before the District Judge. Respondent No. 2 also filed appeals before the District Judge. The appeals filed by the petitioner were allowed and the appeals filed by respondent No. 2 were rejected.

( 3 ) IN the enquiry proceedings, respondent No. 2 was found guilty and his services were terminated by the petitioner on 25. 9. 1995. Respondent No. 2 filed an application for amendment, in the suit seeking addition of relief against his termination order. This amendment application was allowed by the Court.

( 4 ) THE petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer during the pendency of the said suit. The petitioner raised an objection that it was not maintainable. Respondent No. 2 filed an application to withdraw Civil Suit No. 835 of 1995 which was allowed by the Court on 29. 3. 1996. The industrial dispute was referred to for adjudication to respondent No. 1 on 30. 5. 1996. Respondent No. 2 filed written statement stating that his services were wrongly terminated and enquiry held against him be declared illegal. The petitioner filed reply to the said written statement. The Labour Court framed three preliminary issues as follows

(a) Whether the domestic enquiry conducted was fair and legal and if not its effect? (b) Whether the dispute was maintainable in view of paras 2 and 3 of the rejoinder statement of the employer? (c) Whether the respondent No. 2 was a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (z) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, if not, its effect?

( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 vide order dated 11. 8. 1998, held that the respondent No. 2 was a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (z) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The domestic enquiry conducted was invalid and the dispute was maintainable. The respondent No. 2 having chosen to file civil suit, will not debar the Labour Court to adjudicate the dispute referred to it by respondent No. 3. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

( 6 ) I have heard Sri V. R Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri J. N. Tiwari, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2.

( 7 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that this court should not exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of findings recorded by respondent No. 1. It is contended that the Labour Court should normally decide all the issues together and if any preliminary issue is decided, the writ petition against the finding recorded on the preliminary issue should not be examined at that stage in exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court.

( 8 ) THERE is always a controversy as to when the preliminary issue should be decided by the tribunal or the Labour Court while adjudicating the dispute referred to it by the State/central government. There are three aspects. Firstly, whether the Tribunal or the Court should decide any matter as a preliminary issue. Secondly, if it chooses not to decide any issue as preliminary issue, whether the High Court in its Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should issue a mandamus to decide any issue as a preliminary issue and lastly, whether the H