Writ petitions against interlocutory orders of the Labour Court are not maintainable.

ORDER : – The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India while praying for following reliefs : –

“(i) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 29-2-2020 contained in Annexure -P-12 passed by Court below in Case No. 43/2016. (ii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be further pleased to quash the impugned order dated 16-9-2021 contained in Annexure-P-16 by the Court below in Case No. 43/2016. (iii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be further pleased to direct the Court below to record evidence after affording proper opportunity of adducing evidence to the petitioner and should not fix the case for final arguments till both the parties declare that their evidence have been closed. (iv) Any other relief, to which the petitioner is found entitled to, be also granted. (v) Cost of the petition.”

2. The facts as put forth in the petition reflect that the petitioner was working as Journalist with Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited, District-Bhopal (respondent/employer). Respondent/employer filed an application under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking approval of termination of the petitioner. The said application was registered as Case No. 43/2016. The petitioner herein moved his preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the said application filed by the respondent/employer and the said preliminary objection was rejected vide order dated 11-12-2017 (Annexure P/4) by the Labour Court. It is further contended in the petition that on 19-11-2019 (Annexure P/7), the respondent/employer moved an application stating inter alia that the Labour Court incorrectly fixed the date for evidence as respondent/ employer had already conducted a Domestic Enquiry against the present petitioner/employee by following appropriate proceedings. The said application was replied by the present petitioner. Ultimately, the Labour Court has passed an order dated 29-2-2020 contained in Annexure P/12 and by passing the said order, rejected the petitioner’s application for subsistence allowance and the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the respondent/employer is declared to be just and proper.

3. It is further stated in the petition that the Labour Court has passed another order dated 16-9-2021 contained in Annexure P/17 by which an application moved by the respondent/employer under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code contending that the case was incorrectly fixed for evidence inasmuch as, the Labour Court already vide order dated 29-2-2020 (Annexure P/12) declared the Domestic Enquiry to be just and proper. Thus, instead of recording of evidence, the case ought to have been fixed for final arguments. The said application moved under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code by the respondent/employer was allowed and the case was fixed for final arguments.

4. By the same order, another application moved by the present petitioner dated 26-2-2020 for framing additional issue, was also declined while observing that the issues earlier framed already cover the proposed issues which are being sought to be framed by the present petitioner vide his application dated 26-2-2020. Thus, assailing the order dated 29-2-2020 (Annexure P/12) and order dated 16-9-2021 (Annexure P/17) by the Labour Court, Bhopal, this petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court has acted in complete violation of the statutory provisions inasmuch as, holding of inquiry by the Court itself could not have been dispensed with. Counsel submits that the Labour Court ought to have appreciated that the Court itself had fixed the matter for recording of evidence and thus, only on the basis of alleged Domestic Enquiry, the requirement to conduct enquiry could not have been waived. Counsel further submits that respondent/employer being interested party, conducted the Domestic Enquiry in complete violation of the principle of natural justice and thus, on the strength of