Court Declines Writ Intervention on Jurisdictional Objections at Advanced Stages of Statutory Proceedings

The Petitioner filed a batch of writ petitions challenging the jurisdiction of the Respondent No. 1 (Authority under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923) regarding ongoing proceedings.

On 27.04.2026, the concerned Authority passed an interim order, and the matters were subsequently listed for final arguments on 18.05.2026.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to stall the proceedings or obtain a declaration regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the Authority.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with proceedings under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, when they have reached the stage of final arguments.

2. Whether the issue of jurisdiction can be adjudicated by the original Authority as part of the final disposal of the case.

The court's decision is governed by the principles of judicial restraint regarding interlocutory interference in statutory proceedings and the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

The Court emphasized the principle that where an Authority is seized of a matter and it has reached an advanced stage, the parties ought to exhaust their remedies before said Authority, including raising challenges to the Authority’s own jurisdiction, which the Authority is competent to decide as a preliminary or integrated issue.

The Court observed that the proceedings before the Authority were at an "advanced stage," with final arguments already scheduled.

Rather than adjudicating the jurisdictional challenge on merits at this stage, the Court held that the Petitioner possesses the liberty to raise these specific jurisdictional arguments during the final hearing before the Authority.

The Court reasoned that judicial economy and the statutory framework require the Authority to first consider and incorporate its findings on jurisdiction within its final order.

Consequently, the Court found no compelling reason to interfere with the ongoing proceedings at this juncture, provided that the Petitioner's rights to challenge the eventual final order remain preserved.

It held that the Petitioner is at liberty to make submissions regarding jurisdiction during final arguments, and the Authority is mandated to consider the same in its final order.

The petitions were disposed of with a direction to the parties to cooperate for expeditious disposal.

The Court clarified that the final order passed by the Authority, including findings on jurisdiction, remains subject to the parties' future legal rights and remedies.