The High Court cannot interfere with preliminary orders of the Labour Court, and all issues in an industrial dispute should be decided together without premature intervention.

J U D G M E N T

K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J The present writ appeal is preferred by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Limited [hereinafter referred to as ‘KSRTC’ in short] challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C).No.43258/2024 dated 11.12.2024. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition as per the impugned judgment.

2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are as follows:

The writ petitioner/KSRTC has challenged Ext.P14 order dated 13.09.2024 in I.A.No.7/2024 in ID No.4/2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Alappuzha rejecting the interlocutory application considering the maintainability of the industrial dispute as a preliminary issue.

3. The respondent, Basil Scaria, was working as Junior Assistant in the District Transport Office, KSRTC, Ernakulam. Imputing misconduct, he was suspended from the service as per Ext.P1 order dated 18.02.2021. Ext.P3 is the memo of charges and the statement of allegations. The enquiry culminated in Ext.P8 order of dismissal from service dated 19.04.2022 passed by the Executive Director.

4. The respondent, Basil Scaria, approached the Industrial Tribunal and filed an application under Rule 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 [hereinafter referred to as, ‘ID Act’ for short].

5. The petitioner/management filed counter affidavit in the industrial dispute and also filed an interlocutory application to consider the maintainability of the industrial dispute as a preliminary issue. The contention of the petitioner was that, industrial dispute was not maintainable since the respondent has got an alternate remedy under the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (Appellate Tribunal) Regulation, 1981 and that the applicant is not a workman as defined under the ID Act.

6. The contention of the respondent/workman was that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal is not ousted and the scope of the enquiry before the Industrial Tribunal is much wider than the proceedings before the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (Appellate Tribunal).

7. The industrial Tribunal as per Ext.P14 order dismissed the interlocutory application regarding the maintainability of the case.

8. The writ court, placing reliance on the decision reported in Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2022(4) KHC 215 ], dismissed the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the Industrial Tribunal.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the KSRTC submitted that the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable.

11. We have heard the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

12. The main contention of the petitioner/appellant before the learned Single Judge and before us is that the respondent is having an alternate remedy to file appeal before the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (Appellate Tribunal). It is further contended that, as per Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act , 1950, the disciplinary control of the staff of the KSRTC will be that of the Corporation, subject to the relevant provisions of the Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1960.

13. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could not stop the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of a preliminary issue. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder:

11. In S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra [ 1983 (4) SCC 214 : AIR 1984 SC 1462 ] and in D.P. Maheshwari (supra)