ORDER : – The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India while praying for following reliefs : – “(i) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 29-2-2020 contained in Annexure -P-12 passed by Court below in Case No. 43/2016. (ii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be further pleased to quash the impugned order dated 16-9-2021 contained in Annexure-P-16 by the Court below in Case No. 43/2016. (iii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be further pleased to direct the Court below to record evidence after affording proper opportunity of adducing evidence to the petitioner and should not fix the case for final arguments till both the parties declare that their evidence have been closed. (iv) Any other relief, to which the petitioner is found entitled to, be also granted. (v) Cost of the petition.” 2. The facts as put forth in the petition reflect that the petitioner was working as Journalist with Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited, District-Bhopal (respondent/employer). Respondent/employer filed an application under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking approval of termination of the petitioner. The said application was registered as Case No. 43/2016. The petitioner herein moved his preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the said application filed by the respondent/employer and the said preliminary objection was rejected vide order dated 11-12-2017 (Annexure P/4) by the Labour Court. It is further contended in the petition that on 19-11-2019 (Annexure P/7), the respondent/employer moved an application stating inter alia that the Labour Court incorrectly fixed the date for evidence as respondent/ employer had already conducted a Domestic Enquiry against the present petitioner/employee by following appropriate proceedings. The said application was replied by the present petitioner. Ultimately, the Labour Court has passed an order dated 29-2-2020 contained in Annexure P/12 and by passing the said order, rejected the petitioner’s application for subsistence allowance and the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the respondent/employer is declared to be just and proper. 3. It is further stated in the petition that the Labour Court has passed another order dated 16-9-2021 contained in Annexure P/17 by which an application moved by the respondent/employer under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code contending that the case was incorrectly fixed for evidence inasmuch as, the Labour Court already vide order dated 29-2-2020 (Annexure P/12) declared the Domestic Enquiry to be just and proper. Thus, instead of recording of evidence, the case ought to have been fixed for final arguments. The said application moved under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code by the respondent/employer was allowed and the case was fixed for final arguments. 4. By the same order, another application moved by the present petitioner dated 26-2-2020 for framing additional issue, was also declined while observing that the issues earlier framed already cover the proposed issues which are being sought to be framed by the present petitioner vide his application dated 26-2-2020. Thus, assailing the order dated 29-2-2020 (Annexure P/12) and order dated 16-9-2021 (Annexure P/17) by the Labour Court, Bhopal, this petition has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court has acted in complete violation of the statutory provisions inasmuch as, holding of inquiry by the Court itself could not have been dispensed with. Counsel submits that the Labour Court ought to have appreciated that the Court itself had fixed the matter for recording of evidence and thus, only on the basis of alleged Domestic Enquiry, the requirement to conduct enquiry could not have been waived. Counsel further submits that respondent/employer being interested party, conducted the Domestic Enquiry in complete violation of the principle of natural justice and thus, on the strength of the said Domestic Enquiry, the Labour Court could not have deviated from the settled procedure. Counsel also submits that the Labour Court ought to have appreciated that the provisions of section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not provide for dispensation of an Enquiry. 6. On the contrary, a perusal of the said provision makes it abundantly clear that during pendency of conciliation proceedings, the employer may proceed with the proposed action and the said action would be subject to approval by the concerned Labour Court. Counsel also submits that a perusal of the order-sheets clearly reflect that the case was being fixed for evidence and not the final arguments, hence, the impugned order could not have been passed. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the services of petitioner were terminated without there being any approval by the Labour Court and such approval could not have been granted in absence of any Enquiry affording participation to both the parties in the process of adducing of evidence. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the services of petitioner were terminated without there being any approval by the Labour Court and such approval could not have been granted in absence of any Enquiry affording participation to both the parties in the process of adducing of evidence. Therefore, while assailing the impugned order, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court be directed to proceed with the case after affording opportunity of hearing to adduce the evidence of the parties. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of this High Court in the case of Tilak Sahkari Grah Nirman Sanstha Maryadit vs. Aqeel Ahmed and others, reported in 2020(1) M.P.L.J. 332 and on the decision of the this High Court in the case of Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd. vs. Narendra Sharma and another, in Madhya Pradesh No. 5470/2019 along with other connected matters submits that this Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can take cognizance of the error which is being committed by the Subordinate Authority in violation of statutory provisions. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present petition is against interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court hence the same is not maintainable as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dena Bank vs. D. V. Kundadia, reported in (2011) 15 SCC 690 . Counsel submits that even this Court in W. P. No. 1038/2016, Chief Engineer (O and M) M.P.P.K.V.V. Co. Ltd. vs. Anshuman Singh has held that writ against the interim order passed by the Labour Court is not maintainable and only a final award is assailable by filing a petition. Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Managing Director, R.S.R.T.C., Jaipur vs. Suraj Prakash Jat, reported in 2018 (157) FLR 119 , wherein the Division bench of the Rajasthan High Court as well has held that the interlocutory orders passed the Labour Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction and thus, counsel submits that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Counsel for the respondents also submits that a perusal of the order-sheets makes it abundantly clear that the case before the trial Court was incorrectly fixed for evidence and accordingly, the said inadvertence was taken note of by passing the order dated 29-2-2020 (Annexure P/12). The petitioner did not challenge the said order and after lapse of one and half year, this petition has been filed assailing the order dated 29-2-2020 (Annexure P/12) as well as order dated 16-9-2021 (Annexure P/17). Counsel for the respondents submits that perusal of the order-sheets as well as the impugned orders clearly reflect that on one or other pretext, the petitioner/employee made effort to somehow prolong the proceedings and left no stone unturned to ensure that the proceedings are hindered. Thus, counsel submits that the present writ petition assailing the interlocutory orders deserve dismissal inasmuch as, the proceedings before the Labour Court have been stayed by this Court vide order dated 27-10-2020. 8. Having heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record. 9. This Court is of the opinion that the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondent is required to be considered as the same questions the maintainability of the petition. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Dena Bank vs. D. V. Kundadia (supra) has held in paragraph 2 as under : – “2. It is well settled by this Court that no writ should be entertained against an interim order of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal. It is only when a final award is given, then a party should be allowed to challenge it if he is aggrieved.” 11. The judgment of the Apex Court was then taken note of by this Court in W. P. No. 1038/2016 and by the Rajasthan High Court as well in MDRSRTC (supra). While placing reliance on the decision of the Dena Bank (supra), it was held that the writ petition against the interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is not maintainable and only against a final award, the party aggrieved can assail the same in writ petition before the High Court. While placing reliance on the decision of the Dena Bank (supra), it was held that the writ petition against the interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is not maintainable and only against a final award, the party aggrieved can assail the same in writ petition before the High Court. Thus, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Dena Bank (supra), if the impugned orders are perused, the same would reveal that the impugned orders are interlocutory orders passed by the Labour Court, Bhopal and the final award is yet to be passed. 12. Thus, instead of the dealing with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition being not maintainable against the interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court, stands dismissed. 13. The interim order dated 27-10-2021 stands vacated. C.c. as per rules.