Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sudhir Power Ltd vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 18 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on : 15.05.2023
Pronounced on: 18.05.2023
LPA No.66/2022
CM No.4170/2022
Sudhir Power Ltd.
.....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. C.M. Koul, Sr. Adv., with Ms
Renuka Bharti, Advocate
versus
Union Territory of J&K and others .....Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. A.G. for 1
to 4.
Mr. Anil Gupta, Advocate, for 5 to 10.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Tashi Rabstan - Judge
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated
07.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.235/2021,
whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellant herein, i.e, Sudhir Power Ltd.
2. The facts, as gathered from the writ file, are that in the year 2018 an FIR
came to be registered against respondents 5 to 10 herein on the allegation of
alleged attack upon Senior Manager (HR) in the premises of the industrial unit
of appellant. It is averred that thereafter Challan came to be filed against these
2 LPA 66/2022
respondents before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samba,
wherein respondents 5 to 10 are facing trial. It is averred in the appeal that
meanwhile the management of the industrial unit also conducted detailed
inquiry and, ultimately, on being found guilty the services of respondents 5 to
10 came to be terminated. Respondents 5 to 10 questioned the order of
termination of their services before the learned Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jammu/Srinagar.
3. During the course of the proceedings, the learned Tribunal framed the
following three issues:
"1. Whether the termination/retrenchment of applicants from
the services is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Industrial
Dispute Act and law governing the field. OPP
2. If the issue No.1 is proved in affirmative then whether
applicants are entitled for back wages and other benefits.
OPP
3. Relief."
4. Therefore, on the motion of appellant herein, following additional issues
were also framed by the learned Tribunal:
"4. Whether the above titled petition filed under Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 would lie at this stage in the face of
pendency of criminal challan against the petitioners. OPR
5. Whether the present application already filed can further be
carried on when the result of aforesaid criminal trial is yet
to come? OPR"
5. Thereafter, another application was filed by the appellant herein for
treating Issues 4 & 5 as preliminary issues on the grounds that as per the
mandate of Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC, these issues are required to be
considered as preliminary issues. However, the learned Tribunal dismissed the
application vide order dated 23.10.2020.
3 LPA 66/2022
6. The appellant challenged the order dated 23.10.2020 before the Writ
Court and the learned Single Judge too dismissed the petition on 07.05.2022.
Hence, the present appeal.
7. After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the file, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment delivered by the
learned Single Judge is well reasoned and needs no interference. A perusal of
Order XIV Rule 2 clearly reveals that only those issues can be treated as
preliminary issues where the court lacks the jurisdiction, or, where there is a
bar to the suit created by any law. The learned Writ Court has rightly held that
both the issues lack the essentials for being treated as preliminary issues.
Further, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for appellant too are clearly
distinguishable and are of no help to the appellant herein.
8. Viewed thus, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is,
accordingly, dismissed along with connected CM. The judgment of learned
Single Judge is, thus, upheld.
Jammu (Puneet Gupta) (Tashi Rabstan)
18.05.2023 Judge Judge
(Anil Sanhotra)
Whether the order is reportable ? Yes/No
Whether the order is speaking ? Yes/No
