The court emphasized the importance of framing preliminary issues and allowing the respondent to lead evidence to prove misconduct if the inquiry is vitiated or findings are perverse, as supported by relevant legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

N.B. Suryawanshi, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties.

2. Since these petitions raise similar questions of law and facts, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. On the basis of domestic inquiry held, the petitioners were dismissed vide order dated 16th August, 2011. The respondent, therefore, filed application under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter for short "the said Act") seeking approval to the dismissal of the petitioners.

4. The petitioners, by filing written statements and say, resisted the said application.

5. On 31st December, 2018, the respondent filed applications contending that as held by the Apex Court in the case of "M/s. Cooper Engineering V/s. P.P. Mundhe" 1975 (2) SCC 661, it would be expedient to decide legality and propriety of the domestic inquiry held against the respondents (present petitioners) as preliminary issue and in the event the Industrial Tribunal holds the inquiry in the present matter is vitiated and findings of the inquiry officer are perverse, the employer has a legal right to lead evidence to prove the misconduct as held by the Apex Court in the matter of "KSRTC V/s. Lakshmidevamma" (2001) 5 SCC 433. It is further contended that right to lead oral as well as documentary evidence is reserved in paragraph No. 4 of the approval applications. Hence, the respondent prayed that issue, as regards to the legality and validity of the domestic inquiry held against the petitioners and legality of findings of the inquiry officer may be framed and decided as preliminary issue.

6. The said applications were resisted by the petitioners, by filing replies, contending that the applicant has an opportunity to lead oral or documentary evidence in support of the claim made by it in the main applications and it is not disputed that it can be done at this very stage of recording evidence. Reliance placed by the respondent in "M/s. Cooper Engineering's case is misplaced. Said applications are filed with a view to prolong the matter, which is pending for last nine years. As per section 33(2)(b) of the said Act, the applications ought to have been decided within 30 days from the date of filing. The matter is being prolonged, which is causing prejudice to the petitioners, who are unemployed. Hence, it was urged to reject the applications.

7. The Industrial Tribunal allowed the applications and framed preliminary issues i.e.-

"1. Whether enquiry conducted against the respondent is fair and proper?

2. Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse?"

8. The petitioners are aggrieved by framing of preliminary issues. Hence, the present writ petitions.

9. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and learned advocate for the respondent.

10. Learned advocate for the petitioners, by placing reliance on "Lakshmidevamma" (supra) submits that the applications, which are belatedly filed after almost 9 years, after the evidence of the respondent is closed, ought to have been rejected at the threshold by the Industrial Tribunal. According to him, the Tribunal misread and misconstrued the decisions in "Shambu Nath Goyel V/s. Bank of Baroda and Ors" (1983) 3 SCC 491 and Lakshmidevamma (supra). He submits that the petitioners are unemployed, the applications filed under section 33(2)(b) of the said Act, ought to have been disposed of with great promptitude, within thirty days from the date of the filing, however, the same are dragged for nine years' period. By relying on proviso to section 11-A of the said Act, he submits that, in any proceedings under section 11-A of the said Act, the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely on the materials only on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter. Further submission is that the complaints should be finally disposed of and preliminary issues should not be framed after lapse of