The Labour Court must first decide whether the domestic enquiry violated the principles of natural justice before allowing the Management to present evidence.

(Prayer: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected with the orders dated 30.12.2004 made in I.A. Nos. 597 & 598 of 2004 in I.D. No. 545 of 2001 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue.)

The writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders of the first respondent dated 30.12.2004 made in I.A.Nos.597 & 598 of 2004 in I.D.No.545 of 2001.

2. The short facts are:

In the year 1993, the second respondent joined the service of the petitioner Management. With regard to certain lapses, a show cause notice dated 12.9.2000 was issued to the second respondent. Not satisfied with the reply submitted by him, a domestic enquiry was ordered and by letter dated 29.12.2000, the second respondent was advised to be present at the time of enquiry scheduled on 6.1.2001. After providing more than one opportunity to the workman, since the second respondent/workman did not attend the enquiry, the petitioner Management was forced to conduct an ex parte enquiry and basing on the evidence let in before the Enquiry Officer and the documents marked, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the second respondent is guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. Again, a show cause notice dated 27.2.2001 was issued to the second respondent seeking his explanation and after receiving reply from the second respondent, the petitioner Management passed an order dated 23.3.2001 dismissing the second respondent from service. After this, since the conciliation proceedings did not yield any result, the second respondent/workman raised a dispute in I.D.No.545/2000 before the first respondent wherein the petitioner had also filed a counter justifying the order of dismissal and in the event of the first respondent holding that the enquiry conducted by the petitioner was not fair and proper, the petitioner should be provided with an opportunity to let in fresh evidence on merits before the first respondent. When the I.D. was taken up for trial, the petitioner filed I.A.No.597 of 2004 praying before the first respondent to render a finding, at the first instance, about the validity of the enquiry and I.A.598/2004 to eschew the evidence let in by the second respondent in the form of proof affidavit and by way of oral evidence. The said applications were resisted by the second respondent. The first respondent, by the impugned orders, dismissed the above said I.As on the assumption that the petitioner is delaying the proceedings by filing the said I.As. Hence, challenging the dismissal of the above said two I.As., the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner Management.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the second respondent has questioned the fairness of the domestic enquiry by alleging that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, as per the settled law, the first respondent has to decide the preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and in the event of the first respondent coming to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner or in the event of the domestic enquiry is held to be vitiated, oral evidence should be let in to substantiate the order of dismissal. According to the learned counsel, on a wrong assumption, inspite of number of orders in this regard passed by the Honourable Supreme Court as well as by this Court, the first respondent has dismissed the two I.As.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has contended that only to delay the finalisation of the I.D., the petitioner has filed the above said two I.As. According to the learned counsel, due to an accident, the second respondent availed leave with the permiss