Jurisdictional challenges at advanced stages of Employees' Compensation Act proceedings must be addressed in the final order.

The Petitioner filed multiple writ petitions challenging the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1 regarding proceedings initiated under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

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

The Petitioner sought the High Court's intervention to restrain the Authority from proceeding based on the alleged lack of jurisdiction.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with ongoing labor proceedings at the stage of final arguments.

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to raise the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary objection during the final disposal of the case before the statutory Authority.

The court primarily applied the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, regarding the adjudication of claims by the designated Authority.

The principle of judicial restraint concerning "advanced stage" proceedings, holding that discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction should not typically bypass statutory authorities when an alternative, efficacious remedy exists or when the matter is nearing finality.

The principle that jurisdictional challenges are subject to the rights and remedies of parties against the final order.

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

Rather than adjudicating the jurisdictional challenge on its merits, the Court reasoning that the Petitioner’s interests could be protected by allowing them to raise the jurisdictional issue directly before the Authority during final arguments.

The Court emphasized that the Authority is legally obligated to consider such submissions in its final order.

In light of the advanced procedural status, the Court found no justification for interference at this stage, provided that the Petitioner's right to challenge the final outcome (including the jurisdictional finding) remained preserved.

The Court declined to interfere with the proceedings, directed the parties to cooperate for an expeditious disposal, and held that the final order passed by the Authority shall be subject to the statutory rights and remedies available to the parties.