1. The petitioner is a limited company represented by its Managing Director. This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P4 preliminary order passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam in Industrial Dispute No. 3 of 2005. According to the petitioner, the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing Exhibit P4 order, therefore, it is contended that the said order is liable to set aside.

2. The petitioner had initiated disciplinary action against five of its workmen for misconduct. A domestic enquiry was conducted and the workmen were dismissed from service. Out of the five workmen, one person Sri P.V. Pradeep, accepted the punishment, received the amounts offered by the Management and left the service of the petitioner. The other four workmen challenged the punishment.

3. The allegation against the workmen is that, one Sri M.V. Martin, along with four other workmen had assaulted one Sri P.C. Sasi another workman, on 21.12.2003 at about 4.20 P.M. while he was changing his dress in the rest room. In view of the unruly conduct of the workmen, the Management initiated proceedings against them. A domestic enquiry was ordered. Advocate Renil Anto was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and found that the workmen were guilty of the culpable conduct. On the basis of the enquiry, the Management issued notices to the workmen, considered their explanations and dismissed them from service.

4. The second respondent Union thereupon raised an Industrial Dispute. The Government of Kerala by order dated 26.02.2009 referred the dispute for adjudication of the Labour Court, Ernakulam. The same was numbered as I.D.No.3 of 2003. The Union filed claim statement alleging that it was Sri. P.C. Sasi, who manhandled one Sri. K.R. Gireesh and that no action was taken by the petitioner against the said Sri P.C. Sasi. On the other hand, a domestic enquiry was conducted against the other workmen and they have been dismissed from service. The Management filed written statement contending that it was Sri M.V. Martin along with four other workmen who had manhandled Sri P.C. Sasi. The Management produced the enquiry file and examined Advocate Sri Renil Anto who was the enquiry Officer as a witness. The enquiry file was marked through him. There was no witness on the side of the workmen.

5. The Labour Court, Ernakulam considered the validity of the domestic enquiry that was conducted and as per Exhibit P3 preliminary order dated 26.05.2009 held that the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry properly, complying with the principles of Natural Justice. Thereafter, the Labour Court proceeded to consider whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the workmen were guilty of the alleged misconduct was supported by evidence. As per another preliminary order Exhibit P4 dated 30.06.2009, the Labour Court has found that the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the workmen were guilty of the alleged misconduct is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. Thereafter, the case has been posted for the Management to adduce evidence in support of the order of the dismissal passed against the workmen. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P4.

6. According to Senior Counsel Sri. BS Krishnan, Exhibit P4 order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The Labour Court having found as per Exhibit P3 preliminary order that the domestic enquiry conducted by Management was fair and in compliance with the principles of natural justice, it had no jurisdiction to consider whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer was justified or not. It is pointed out that, no evidence whatsoever was let in by the workmen. Therefore, a reappraisal of the evidence adduced by the management to find out whether it supported the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer was absolutely uncalled for. It is further pointed out that, the practice of passing a second preliminary order in the proceedings is also irregular and in excess o