- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16776 WP No. 105480 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 105480 OF 2025 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: BASAVARAJA S/O. DUNDAPPA ANGADI, AGE. 59, OCC. CLEARK (NOW DISMISSED), R/O. MULLUR CHAWL, ANAND GADDI, KAMALAPURA, DHARWAD – 580 007. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. U.J. HAVALDAR & SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CUM LABOUR COURT, SHARAM SADAN, G. G. PALYA, TUMKUR ROAD, YESWANTHPUR, BENGALURU – 560 022. 2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE, GOAVASE, BELAGAVI – 590 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAGHVENDRA PUROHIT, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30/06/2025 IN CR NO. 02/2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RECONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN LIGHT OF THE PETITIONER S PLEADINGS, EVIDENCE, AND LEGAL SUBMISSIONS, AFTER GRANTING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16776 WP No. 105480 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labor Court (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal” for short), insofar as it decides the preliminary issue holding that the domestic enquiry against the petitioner to be fair and proper. 2. The petitioner is an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the respondent No.2, owing to certain omission and commission is dismissed from service. The dismissal of which is under challenge before the Tribunal. The Tribunal frames a preliminary issue with regard to procedural fairness with regard to the enquiry and a finding is rendered on recording of evidence on the preliminary issue. The petitioner is before the Court challenging the finding of the Tribunal on the preliminary issue, contending that the order impugned of the disciplinary authority which dismissed the petitioner from service, did bear no reasons. That is not considered by the concerned Court while rejecting the preliminary issue against the petitioner. The writ petition on a preliminary issue would not - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16776 WP No. 105480 of 2025 become entertainable unless gross or grave prejudice ensues to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that during the cross-examination before the Tribunal while answering the preliminary issue has admitted the charges and therefore, the preliminary issue has gone against him. 4. Be that as it may, it is now settled principle of law that writ petition cannot be entertained on preliminary issue, as both the preliminary issue and final issue can form a challenge before the appropriate forum at the appropriate time. The issue is no longer res integra, as the Apex Court right from D.P. Maheshwari vs. Delhi Administration and others1, which reads as under: “1. It was just the other day that we were bemoaning the unbecoming devices adopted by certain employers to avoid decision of industrial disputes on merits. We noticed how they would raise various preliminary objections, invite decision on those objections in the first instance, carry the matter to the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution and delay a decision of the real dispute for years, sometimes for over a decade. Industrial peace, one presumes, hangs in the balance in the meanwhile. We have now before us a case where a dispute originating in 1969 and referred for adjudication 1 (1983) 4 SCC 293 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16776 WP No. 105480 of 2025 by the Government to the Labour Court in 1970 is still at the stage of decision on a preliminary objection. There was a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy to decide preliminary issues first. But the time appears to have arrived for a reversal of that policy. We think it is better that tribunals, particularly those entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where delay may lead to misery and jeopardise industrial peace, should decide all issues in dispute at the same time without trying some of them as preliminary issues. Nor should High Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution stop proceedings before a Tribunal so that a preliminary issue may be decided by them. Neither the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution nor the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 136 may be allowed to be exploited by those who can well afford to wait to the detriment of those who can ill afford to wait by dragging the latter from Court to Court for adjudication of peripheral issues, avoiding decision on issues more vital to them. Art. 226 and Art. 136 are not meant to be used to break the resistance of workmen in this fashion. Tribunals and Courts who are requested to decide preliminary questions must therefore ask themselves whether such threshold part-adjudication is really necessary and whether it will not lead to other woeful consequences. After all tribunals like Industrial Tribunals are constituted to decide expeditiously special kinds of disputes and their jurisdiction to so decide is not to be stifled by all manner of preliminary objections journeyings up and down. It is also worth while remembering that the nature of the jurisdiction under Art. 226 is supervisory and not appellate while that under Art. 136 is primarily supervisory but the Court may exercise all necessary appellate powers to do substantial justice. In the exercise of such jurisdiction neither the High Court nor this Court is required to be too astute to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by special tribunals at interlocutory stages and on preliminary issues.” (emphasis supplied) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16776 WP No. 105480 of 2025 5. Subsequently, the Apex Court in the case of Cipla Ltd. and others vs. Ripu Daman Bhanot and another2, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “14. The finding of the Labour Court that the order of termination was bad for the reason that it was not issued by the Personnel Manager who was the appointing authority of the respondent but was issued by the General Manager (Marketing) who was not competent cannot be sustained as in recording this finding, the Labour Court does not refer to Service Rules which ought to have been done as it was pointed out to him that the General Manager (Marketing) was an Officer superior in rank to the Personnel Manager but the Labour Court brushed aside the submission on the ground that nothing was brought on record to indicate that the General Manager (Marketing) was superior in rank. We refrain ourselves from making any observation on the merit of this question as the whole matter is being remanded for deciding these questions afresh. We would only say that the Labour Court should decide all the issues together and shall not split the issues into preliminary or non-preliminary issues so that the proceedings may come to an end at the earliest.” (emphasis supplied) 6. It is needless to observe that the Tribunal while answering all the issues at a later point in time shall also consider the issue with regard to the order impugned not being reasoned or any other legal ground projected by the petitioner. 2 (1999) 4 SCC 188 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16776 WP No. 105480 of 2025 7. With the aforesaid observations, without interfering with the impugned order, petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RSH/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24