JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner is the management of Srihari Mills Private Limited at Ondipudur in Coimbatore District. In all these Writ Petitions, the challenge is made to the order passed by the 1st respondent Labour Court, Coimbatore in various Interlocutory Applications. The interlocutory applications were dismissed by the Labour Court by separate orders dated 29.12.2009. Aggrieved by the interim orders passed by the Labour Court, the petitioners have moved this Court. 2. When the Writ Petitions came up for admission on 28.6.2010, this Court directed Notice to be served on the learned counsel who appeared for the workman and granted interim stay for a limited period. Subsequently, on 13.7.2010, the interim stay was directed to continue without specifying any particular time limit. 3. On notice from this Court, Mr.G.B.Saravanabhavan appears for the contesting 2nd respondent workmen in all the Writ Petitions. 4. It is seen from the records that the contesting respondents workmen filed Claim Petitions under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the 1st respondent Labour Court. The claim made by them was for unpaid wages for the period from 1.7.1995 to 31.7.1995 at the rate of Rs.125/- per day and also the salary due in terms of Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act starting from 1.10.1995 to 31.7.2006. The claim for each workman varies depending upon the rate of wages for the period for which the claim has been made. The Labour Court took up those applications on file and assigned various Claim Petition Numbers and ordered Notice to the petitioner management. 5. The petitioner management on receipt of the notice filed a counter statement in each of the Claim Petitions dated 20.2.2008. The stand of the petitioner management was that a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act on 24.10.2002 was signed between the parties and under clause 18, the workmen have agreed that they will not claim any lay off compensation in view of the severe economic crisis faced by the petitioner management and it will be treated as 'no work no pay'. 6. Before the Labour Court could take up the issues in a trial, curiously the petitioner management filed interlocutory applications asking the Labour Court to decide the preliminary issue relating to the maintainability of the claim petitions, in view of the settlement signed under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the parties. 6. Before the Labour Court could take up the issues in a trial, curiously the petitioner management filed interlocutory applications asking the Labour Court to decide the preliminary issue relating to the maintainability of the claim petitions, in view of the settlement signed under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the parties. It was stated that 476 out of 490 workers have received the benefit in terms of the settlement dated 24.10.2002 and contrary to the order passed by this Court in a Writ Petition, the claim petitions were filed. 7. The Interlocutory applications were assigned various numbers by the Labour Court and the contesting respondents workmen filed a counter statement stating that the claim made in the claim petitions and the issues pending before this Court are different matters. The workers are only claiming minimum wages and bonus during the period of illegal closure of the mill. It is also stated that at every stage of the proceedings, the management is adopting dilatory tactics. Some of the co-workers were also threatened with police and goondas and forcibly signatures were sought to be obtained. 8. The Labour Court in a petition under Section 33-C(2) can comprehensively decide all matters and there is no necessity to decide any particular issue as a preliminary issue. The Labour Court on the basis of pleadings between the parties and after hearing both parties by order dated 29.12.2009 dismissed the interlocutory applications and posted the main claim petitions and it also stated that the issue will be tried along with other issues and it is unnecessary to decide the issue raised by the management in the interlocutory applications as separate issues. However, the contention of the management was that under Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, the Labour Court are empowered to decide a preliminary issue and therefore there is no impediment for the Labour Court to try this as preliminary issue. 9. Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 reads as follows: "Preliminary enquiry - A Labour Court or Tribunal, while investigating any industrial dispute, may in its discretion, settle the issues in the light of a preliminary enquiry, which it may hold for the purpose, and thereafter adjudicate the said dispute." 10. 9. Rule 35 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 reads as follows: "Preliminary enquiry - A Labour Court or Tribunal, while investigating any industrial dispute, may in its discretion, settle the issues in the light of a preliminary enquiry, which it may hold for the purpose, and thereafter adjudicate the said dispute." 10. A perusal of the Rule clearly shows that it refers to investigation of industrial dispute by Labour Court or Tribunal and even in such cases, the Court only by its discretion can settle the issue in the light of the preliminary enquiry which it may hold and thereafter adjudicate the dispute. It is not clear as to how the said Rule is applicable to the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The proceedings under Section 33-C (2) is in the nature of execution proceedings and summary in nature and it is for the Labour Court to decide whether the issue is a preliminary issue or it should try with other issues in a comprehensive manner. 11. The Labour Court correctly referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.P.Maheswari vs. Delhi administration reported in 1983 (2) LLJ 425 . It also highlighted the apprehension raised by the Supreme Court that at every time, the employers are baulking at the proceedings and times have gone when matters were decided leisurely as a preliminary issue and thereafter decide on the merits of the case. Though the said judgment related to a Public Sector Corporation, the apprehension raised by the Supreme Court applies to all types of litigations before the Labour Court. In fact in that case, the Supreme Court had warned the employers that they should not attempt to avoid adjudication on merits by raising preliminary issues. 12. In this context, the Labour Court also referred to the decision rendered by this Court in Neslin Joseph Prin vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai reported in 2003 (1) LLN 366, wherein this Court had held that the Labour Court is under obligation to decide all issues as early as possible keeping in mind the entire scheme of the Act. 13. In the common counter affidavit filed by the contesting respondents, they have also raised the issue that in respect of the claim made under Chapter V-B, the question of any settlement defeating the rights of the workmen will not arise. 13. In the common counter affidavit filed by the contesting respondents, they have also raised the issue that in respect of the claim made under Chapter V-B, the question of any settlement defeating the rights of the workmen will not arise. Even in the said settlement referred to by the management, there was provision to convert that bilateral settlement into one of tripartite settlement under Section 12(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that has not been done by the management. 14. Mr.G.B.Saravanabhavan, learned counsel for the contesting respondents also referred to the judgment of this Court in Sri Arunachaleswarar Mills represented by its Partner S.Natarajamoorthy, Krishnapuram, Udumalaipettai vs. The Joint Secretary, Department of Industries and Labour Secretariat, Chennai and others in W.P.No.24564 of 2009 dated 18.1.2010 reported in, wherein this Court after referring to the non-obstante clause under Section 25-J (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act had held that the rights of the workman in applying from Chapter V-A or Chapter V-B cannot be compromised by any contract. 15. However, it is unnecessary to render any finding at this stage on the merits of the case. It is suffice that the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the Labour Court had not erred in refusing the particular issue as a preliminary issue and had assured the parties that the issues will be decided in a comprehensive manner. In the light of the same, since the main issue is yet to be decided by the Labour Court, this Court is refrain from dealing with the merits of the claim made by the parties. It is suffice that the Labour Court will try all the issues arising out of the claim made by the contesting respondents workmen at the time of the trial. It is rather unfortunate that the management had stalled the summary proceedings by filing a Writ Petition that too against preliminary orders without any real prejudice being caused to them. In that process, one year had elapsed. 16. Hence, all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable to the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent workmen. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 17. In that process, one year had elapsed. 16. Hence, all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable to the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent workmen. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 17. Since the Claim Petitions are of the year 2006 and more than 5 years lapsed, the Labour Court shall give preference for the disposal of the claim petitions and in any event shall dispose of the same after a trial, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.