Writ challenge against interlocutory orders on the validity of domestic inquiries is not maintainable.

The petitioner, an employee, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an interlocutory order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara, in Reference (LCV) No. 167 of 2014

The impugned order, passed below Exh.-17, declared that the departmental inquiry conducted by the respondent-employer was legal, proper, and compliant with the principles of natural justice

The petitioner contended the inquiry was illegal due to the non-payment of subsistence allowance and failure to appreciate documentary evidence

The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition against an interlocutory finding

Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a preliminary/interlocutory order of a Labour Court upholding the legality of a departmental inquiry before the final award is passed

The Court primarily applied the principle established by the Supreme Court of India in Cooper Engineering Limited vs. P.P. Mundhe, AIR 1975 SC 1900, which mandates that the legality of a domestic inquiry should be decided as a preliminary issue by the Labour Court, and such decisions should not be challenged mid-proceedings to avoid stalling industrial adjudication

The Court also relied on a Coordinate Bench decision in Special Civil Application No. 8754 of 2003, which affirmed that High Courts should refuse to intervene at the interlocutory stage of industrial disputes

The Court reasoned that industrial adjudication must proceed without undue delay

By applying the Cooper Engineering precedent, the Court noted that when a Labour Court decides the validity of a departmental inquiry at an interlocutory stage, the aggrieved party has no justification to stall the final adjudication

The Court observed that the petitioner is not remediless, as the findings on the preliminary issue (the validity of the inquiry) can be agitated and challenged alongside the final award once the entire reference is disposed of

Consequently, judicial intervention under Article 226 is inappropriate at this mid-stage of the proceedings

The petition was disposed of with the clarification that the petitioner remains free to challenge the legality, validity, and findings of the domestic inquiry after the final award is passed

To balance the interests of the petitioner, given the Reference dates back to 2014, the Court directed the Labour Court to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within eight months

No costs were ordered