Delhi High Court
Vijay Kumar Agarwal vs M/S D.D. Industries Limited on 9 October, 2009
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C.) No. 9208/2009 and C.M. No. 12566/2009 (for stay)
% Date of Decision: 09th October, 2009
# VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL
..... PETITIONER
! Through: Mr. R.P. Sharma , Advocate.
VERSUS
$ M/S D.D. INDUSTRIES LIMITED
.....RESPONDENT
^ Through: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate.
CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see
the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? NO
S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
The workman Mr. Vijay Kumar Agarwal in this writ petition seeks to
challenge an interlocutory order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the Labour
Court dismissing his application under Rule 15 of the the Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 for summoning Mr. Naresh Aggarwal and
Mr. R.P. Khurana (both officials of the management) to examine them on
the point of service of charge-sheet dated 08.09.2005 and also regarding
records of assigning the work/duties for the year 2005-06.
2. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.P.
Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration, (1983) 4 SCC 293, this writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against an interlocutory
order is not maintainable. The relevant portion of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case is extracted below:
"It was just the other day that we were bemoaning the
unbecoming devices adopted by certain employers to avoid
decision of industrial disputes on merits. We noticed how they
would raise various preliminary objections, invite decision on
those objections in the first instance, carry the matter to the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and to this
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and delay a decision
of the real dispute for years, sometimes for over a decade.
Industrial peace, one presumes, hangs in the balance in the
meanwhile. We have now before us a case where a dispute
originating in 1969 and referred for adjudication by the
Government to the Labour Court in 1970 is still at the stage of
decision on a preliminary objection. There was a time when it
was thought prudent and wise policy to decide preliminary
issues first. But the time appears to have arrived for a reversal
of that policy. We think it is better that tribunals, particularly
those entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes
where delay may lead to misery and jeopardise industrial
peace, should decide all issues in dispute at the same time
without trying some of them as preliminary issues. Nor should
High Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution stop proceedings before a Tribunal so
that a preliminary issue may be decided by them. Neither the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution nor the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136
may be allowed to be exploited by those who can well afford to
wait to the detriment of those who can ill afford to wait by
dragging the latter from Court to Court for adjudication of
peripheral issues, avoiding decision on issues more vital to
them. Article 226 and Article 136 are not meant to be used to
break the resistance of workmen in this fashion. Tribunals and
Courts who are requested to decide preliminary questions must
therefore ask themselves whether such threshold part-
adjudication is really necessary and whether it will not lead to
other woeful consequences. After all tribunals like Industrial
Tribunals are constituted to decide expeditiously special kinds
of disputes and their jurisdiction to so decide is not to be stifled
by all manner of preliminary objections journeying up and
down. It is also worthwhile remembering that the nature of the
jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate
while that under Article 136 is primarily supervisory but the
Court may exercise all necessary appellate powers to do
substantial justice. In the exercise of such jurisdiction neither
the High Court nor this Court is required to be too astute to
interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by special tribunals at
interlocutory stages and on preliminary issues."
3. In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this
writ petition filed by the workman against an interlocutory order is not
maintainable. Even otherwise, I have gone through the impugned interim
order of the Labour Court and on going through the same, I find no
illegality or perversity in the said order because the inquiry issue has
already been decided by the Court below against the workman.
4. In view of the foregoing, this writ petition is dismissed. The stay
application is also dismissed.
OCTOBER 09, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'BSR'
