Court declines interference in advanced statutory proceedings, permitting jurisdictional challenges during final arguments.

The Petitioner filed a batch of writ petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Respondent Authority in proceedings initiated under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

The underlying proceedings had reached an advanced stage, with the concerned Authority having passed an order on April 27, 2026.

The matter was slated for final arguments before the Authority on the date of the High Court hearing, May 18, 2026.

Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 to interfere with the proceedings of the Authority under the Employees’ Compensation Act at the stage of final arguments.

Whether the Petitioner's challenge regarding the Authority's jurisdiction can be appropriately adjudicated within the final order of the Authority itself.

The Court applied the principle of judicial restraint regarding interlocutory interference in statutory proceedings, particularly when such proceedings are at an advanced stage.

It also relied on the principle that a jurisdictional challenge can be raised as a preliminary or integrated issue during final arguments before a quasi-judicial body.

The proceedings are governed by the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

The Court observed that since the proceedings before the Authority had reached the stage of final arguments, interference by the High Court at this juncture was unwarranted.

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner's grievances regarding the lack of jurisdiction could be effectively addressed by making oral and written submissions directly to the Authority during the final hearing.

It emphasized that the Authority is mandated to consider and adjudicate upon the issue of jurisdiction within its final order.

To ensure a swift resolution, the Court directed the parties to cooperate for an expeditious disposal rather than stalling the process through parallel writ litigation.

The Court held that the Petitioner is at liberty to raise the issue of jurisdiction during final arguments before the Authority, which must be addressed in the final order.

The Court further clarified that the final order passed by the Authority, including the decision on jurisdiction, remains subject to the statutory rights and remedies available to the parties.