Siri Jagan, J.

Management in I.D.No.16/2000 on the files of the Labour Court, Kollam, the preliminary order in which was under challenge in the writ petition at their instance, is the appellant herein, the learned Single Judge having dismissed the writ petition. The facts necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as under.

2. The Government referred the following issue for adjudication of the Labour Court”

“Whether the dismissal of M.C. Jacob and P.M. Jacob, X-ray Technicians is illegal?”

The said workmen were dismissed after conducting a domestic enquiry. Therefore, the Labour Court considered the question as to whether the enquiry is valid or liable to be set aside. The Labour Court found that on an overall consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and the evidence of the enquiry officer, the enquiry is liable to be set aside. The learned Single Judge did not decide the question on merits but relying on certain judgment so the Supreme Court, held that the impugned order being only a preliminary order, the petitioner should challenge the same while challenging the ultimate award to the passed in the I.D. at the appropriate stage and therefore reserving such right, the writ petition was dismissed. This judgment is under challenge in this writ appeal.

3. The first question we have to decide is as to whether this Court should interfere with the preliminary order of the Labour Court or leave it to the appellant to challenge that also if the ultimate award to be passed by the Labour Court is also against the Management. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that a bare perusal of the reasoning given by the Labour Court for setting aside the enquiry would be sufficient to show that those reasoning was per se perverse and if the Labour Court is allowed to proceed further on the basis of such a perverse preliminary order, the management would be put to severe hardship as they would be forced to go through the entire process of adducing evidence against the workmen before the Labour court, even though the findings of the labour Court was based on totally unsustainable reasons. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant argues that this is an eminently fit case where this Court should interfere at the preliminary stage itself.

4. On the other hand, citing various decisions of the Supreme Court, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that it is settled law that this Court should not interfere with preliminary orders passed in industrial disputes and should relegate the parties to challenge the present order also while challenging the final award itself, if occasion rises for the same.

5. We are of the opinion that there should not be any hard and fast rules regarding challenge of preliminary orders in industrial disputes. It is true that the Supreme Court had in several decisions, held that parties should not be allowed to challenge preliminary orders and they should be left to challenge that order also while challenging the final award. But, we are of opinion that proposition of law is not for universal application without any exception in all cases. Just because the management is in a better bargaining position viz-a-viz the workmen, that alone is no good ground for denying managements also their rights. When the management has conducted a domestic enquiry in strict compliance with the principles of natural justice, we cannot hold that the hands of this Court are tied until the final award comes. In this connection, we also note that a learned Single Judge of this Court has in the decision of Dv. General Manager, S.B.I. v. Roy Samuel, 2004 (2) KLT 923 had taken such a view. Paragraphs 14 to 16 of that decision are noteworthy for the purpose which we extract below:

“14. I do not think it is necessary at this juncture for me to go to the merits of the contentions as above, but will have to deal with the preliminary objection that the Writ petition is not maintainable. The principle is not ab