Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.1 Except that, no other submission is made by learned advocate Mr.Shah in support of present petitions.

5. I have considered submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Shah and I perused order passed by Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 18.5.2011, which is under challenge and also considered observations made by Apex Court in above referred decision.

5.1 The submissions made by learned advocate Mr.Shah is based on total mis-conception of law because it is not always a legal obligation upon Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad to decide any kind of preliminary point raised by party to be decided first. The Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad is having a discretionary jurisdiction to decide which preliminary point is required to be decided first and party cannot compel to Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad to decide first preliminary point which has been raised by petitioner before Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad.

7. In fact, there is no decision on merits which are challenged in present petitions. In order dated 18.5.2011 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad, the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad has not examined or decided rights of either parties. In such a innocuous interlocutory order, writ petition is not maintainable. Prima facie, this Court is having an impression that why such kind of objection has been raised by petitioner being a preliminary point against written statement which has been signed by, according to petitioner, an unauthorized person. If the written statement remained signed by unauthorized person, then petitioner can argue at the time when Exh.2 application is heard that this written statement can be ignored because it has not been signed by authorized person. In spite of that, raised contention to remove written statement, then petitioner wants to delay the hearing of interim stay application wherein ex-parte interim relief enjoyed by petitioner. Therefore, this is not a bona fide application preferred by petitioner before Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad. But idea is to see that interim relief which has been obtained by petitioner ex-parte against respondent, let it be remained continued for some more time while rising such kind of frivolous contention as a preliminary point that written statement filed by other side may be removed from proceedings. This aspect has been properly examined and considered by Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad and therefore, it has adjourned hearing of preliminary point application along with interim relief application Exh.2.

14. In view of above observations made by Apex Court not to entertain petition even in case of decision given by Tribunal on preliminary point. But considering facts of this cases, order dated 18.5.2011 wherein even Industrial Tribunal, Ahemdabad has not examined and decided application. Therefore, question of challenging such order does not arise. The hearing of preliminary point application has been adjourned along with Exh.2 application but, intention of petitioner is that no hearing immediately to be taken place of Exh.2 application wherein ex-parte interim relief enjoyed by petitioner. Therefore, according to my opinion, normally such type of orders should not have to be challenged by workmen before higher forum. That is also wasting of time and expenses unnecessarily because no proper advise given to petitioner.

12. Now, I consider the pronouncements of various Courts cited by Mr. Chari. The judgment in matter of National Engineering Industries Limited v. State of Rajasthan [2000 1 CLR 389] is not in respect to the preliminary issue but it relates to the power of the High Court to entertain writ petition challenging the terms of reference where there is allegation that there is no industrial dispute. Therefore, the said judgment is not relating to the preliminary point which has been canvassed by Mr.Chari. The second decision relied upon by Mr. Chari in the matter of The Nedungadi Bank Limited v. K.P Madhavankutty [2000 AIR SCW 397] is also not relating to the preliminary point but it relates as to whether while making the reference, the appropriate Government can also consider the question of delay and if the Government thinks it fit, then such a stale dispute cannot be referred but it is not in respect to the present controvercy between the parties. The decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Management of Express Newspapers (Private) Limited, Madras [Supra] is relating to the question of preliminary issue. But, in the said decision, it is not held that each and every issue raised by the employer as a Preliminary issue should have to be decided first. The two decisions of the Karnataka High Court in the matters of Rangaswamy & Company [Supra] and of Hira Sugar Employees' Cooperative Consumers Stores Limited [Supra] though being on the preliminary issue, however, in the first decision in the matter of Rangaswamy [Supra] it was a case that the Labour Court has examined the question of interim relief, and therefore, the Court has held that before deciding the question of interim relief, the preliminary point which has been raised by the employer should have to be decided first then the interim relief is required to be granted by the Labour Court. So, it is altogether on the different footing. The second decision of the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Hira Sugar Employee's Cooperative Consumers Stores Limited [Supra] does not consider the decision in the matter of D.P Maheshwari and it only has considered the decision of the Apex court in the matter between Management of Express Newspapers (Private) Limited, Madras. Therefore, this judgment is also not relevant because subsequent to that decision, in case of National Council for Cement & Building Materials [Supra], almost all the decisions have been considered by the Apex Court. Thus, the decisions relied upon by Mr. Chari; as aforesaid, have no bearing in the matter at hand.