IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No.286 of 2022 Decided on 14th October, 2025 Federal Mogul Anand Bearing India Limited …Petitioner Versus Gurdev Chauhan (since deceased) through his LRs and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 09.06.2022 passed in Reference No.34 of 2019 in reference titled as Gurdev Chauhan versus Federal Mogul Anand Bearing India Limited by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Shimla, whereby an application moved under Order 14 Rule 2(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC has been dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the application under Order 14 rule 2(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC moved by the petitioner company deserves to be allowed in totality.” 2 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Labour Court, in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 2(2) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for treating the issue regarding the maintainability of the reference made and the jurisdiction of this Court/Tribunal to adjudicate the reference as a preliminary issue stands rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the light of the settled law that if any such objection is raised by the employer, then, said issue has to be decided by treating the same as a preliminary issue, learned Labour Court has erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the light of the petitioner herein having not assailed the reference per se, it has no locus to assail the maintainability of the proceedings by taking the stand that the reference is bad or the Court does not has jurisdiction to decide the reference. 3 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the lis between the parties is pending adjudication for some time and it has been lingering in this Court also for more than 3 years now, this petition is disposed of with the direction that though this Court is not interfering with the impugned order, but it is observed that after the recording of the evidence of the parties for which also not more than 3 opportunities shall be given to either of the parties, the issue with regard to maintainability shall be decided as the first issue by the learned Labour Court. If the findings returned on the said issue are in favour of the employer, then, the learned Labour Court shall not adjudicate upon other issues. However, it is clarified that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of the adjudication of this petition and it is further observed that the Reference be answered by the learned Labour Court on its own merit in the light of what stands directed by the Court herein. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 14, 2025 (Vinod)