Preliminary orders of Labour Court should not be interfered with as they can be challenged along with final awards.

1. The writ petition is filed by the Secretary and President of the Kalpetta Service Co - operative Bank (for short 'the Management') challenging Exts.P7 and P11 preliminary orders passed by the Labour Court, Kannur

2. The 1st respondent workman raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer alleging denial of employment by the Management and the Government referred the dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court and the dispute was numbered as I.D.No.4 of 2013. The Management filed I.A.No.73/2014 questioning the maintainability of the dispute contending that a settlement was arrived at between the Management and the workman whereby the workman was reinstated in service and the settlement is binding on the workman. The Labour Court, by Ext.P7 order, answered the preliminary point by holding that the alleged settlement will not preclude the Court from adjudicating the industrial dispute referred.

3. Later, the Management filed I.A.No.59/2023 in I.D.No.4/2023 stating that the issue regarding denial of employment has already been settled and the workman was reinstated in service pursuant to the settlement and the dispute has become infructuous and redundant and the maintainability of the dispute has to be considered as a preliminary issue.

4. The Labour Court, by Ext.P11 order, found that the issue was already answered by Ext.P7 order and the said order is not challenged and the present petition with same prayer would amount to delaying the disposal of the dispute, which is of the year 2013. The Labour Court also relied on the decision of this Court in Lupin Ltd. v. Suresh [ 2007 (4) KLT 1092 ] wherein this Court held that when the question of maintainability of reference is raised as an issue, it is not necessary to consider the same as preliminary issue.

5. The petitioners challenge Exts.P7 and P11 orders in this writ petition.

6. Heard the counsel on both sides.

7. As rightly observed by the Labour Court in Ext.P11, the filing of I.A.No.59/2023 was quite unnecessary in view of Ext.P7 order by which the same preliminary issue was answered.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cooper Engineering Ltd v. P. P. Mundhe [ AIR 1975 SC 1900 : 1975 (2) SCC 661] cautioned against stalling the proceedings before the Labour Court on a finding recorded on a preliminary issue. The Court observed thus: -
"...We should also make it clear that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award.
It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication."

9. In S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra [ 1983 (4) SCC 214 : AIR 1984 SC 1462] and in D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration [ (1983) 4 SCC 293 ], the Apex Court observed that all issues whether preliminary or otherwise should be decided together and even if a decision is rendered on preliminary issue, the Courts shall not intervene at the interlocutory stage under Art.226 of the Constitution.

10. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Cooper Engineering Ltd, S.K. Verma and D.P. Maheshwari (supra), this Court, in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Rajamoni [ 1992 (2) KLT 66 ], held that the High Court shall not interfere with preliminary orders of the Labour Court and observed thus:
"4. If the petitioners are aggrieved against the final award, they have adequate remedy at that stage. If opportunity has not been given to the pe