Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Sanjiv Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed against the order of the Labour Court, Kanpur, by which, preliminary issue No. 1 with regard to the fairness of the domestic enquiry, has been decided against the employer. The petitioner is a bank and had dismissed the services of the workman respondent No. 2, who raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, decided issue No. 1, holding that the principles of natural justice was not observed by the employer while conducting the domestic enquiry and, has therefore set-aside the domestic enquiry. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. At the outset, the Court finds this is not the stage for the employer to approach the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) IN Cooper Engineering Limited v. P.P. Mundhe, 1975 (2) Lab LJ 379, the I Supreme Court held that there was no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue, when the matter, if worthy, could be agitated even after the final award. The Supreme Court further held that it was legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at that stage. In S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra and another, 1983 Lab IC 1483, the Supreme Court held that it has become a fashion by the employers to raise preliminary objections especially by the public sector undertaking and whenever an Industrial Dispute was raised or referred to a Tribunal for adjudication, a Public Sector Undertaking, which is an instrumentality of the State, instead of welcoming a decision by the Tribunal on merits, attempts to evade a decision on merits by raising preliminary objections and, upon such rejection, carry the matter to the High Court and to the Supreme Court wasting public time and money. The Supreme Court further held that a public sector undertaking should act as model employers and model litigants, and that, it was not expected from them to indulge in luxurious litigation and drag the workman from Court to Court merely to vindicate some rigid or technical stand taken up by them.;