- (1.) It is an unfortunate case. In respect of an incident dated 27th of October, 1986 after facing domestic inquiry, the services of respondent workman, respondent No. 2 herein, was terminated on 18th of December, 1987. The matter was referred for adjudication by the State Government on 23.12.1992, yet the decision of Labour Court is not in sight due to the dialectic tactics adopted by its employer, the petitioner herein. This is second round of litigation at the instance of the employer. In the first - round of the litigation, the employer succeeded in obtaining a stay order by filing writ petition No. 3456 of 1993 staying the further proceedings in the adjudication case which remained pending over a period of decade and the petition was ultimately dismissed on 15th of March, 2004 with hope that the Labour Court will decide the adjudication case within a period of four months. But the said hope has been belied.
(2.) This is another attempt to forestall the proceedings in the adjudication case by raising some usual preliminary objections and pressing that preliminary objections should be disposed of first.
(3.) The services of respondent No. 2. Harpal Singh were terminated in respect of the alleged incident dated 27th of October, 1986 after holding domestic inquiry wherein he was found guilty of misconduct. An industrial dispute against the termination order was raised by him and the matter was referred by the State Government to Labour Court for adjudication. The said matter is still pending consideration and it has now been renumbered as adjudication case No. 84 of 2008. Earlier, against the reference order, a writ petition No. 3456 of 1993 was filed in this Court which was dismissed on 15th of March, 2004 as having become infructuous. After dismissal of the writ petition, on 15th of September, 2008 a written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner. The pleadings before the Labour Court are complete and issues have been framed. One of the objections raised by the petitioner is that the issue as to whether the departmental inquiry was fair and proper opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent workman, be decided first. The contention is that if the said issue is decided against the employer, the employer will have a right to adduce evidence before the Labour Court to establish the guilt of the workman before it. With this view in mind, an application was filed by the employer being application No. 25-D to review and recall the order dated 3rd of December, 2008 and decide the aforestated controversy as a preliminary issue. The said application having been rejected by the impugned order dated 4th of February, 2009, the present writ petition has been filed.;