Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) HEARD . By means of the present petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of the Order dated 8th of February, 2010 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner whereby it has framed certain issues but has provided that the said issues shall be disposed of after recording the evidence of the parties.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners could not show anything which may persuade this Court to issue a direction to the Labour Court to decide the preliminary issue first. By the order dated 25th of March, 2010 time was granted to the learned Counsel for the petitioners to look into the statutory provisions. But he could not point out any such provision. Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that a direction be issued by this Court to decide the certain issues as preliminary issues first. It is difficult to issue any such direction.
(3.) IN the case of D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and others, 1983 (47) FLR 477 (SC) the Apex Court has held that 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. It has been held that 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. The relevant portion is reproduced below: 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 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 of the Constitution nor the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 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 and Article 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 consequence. 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 and journeyings up and down. It is also worthwhile remembering that the nature of the jurisdiction under Article is supervisory and not appellate while that under Article 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.;