The employer's right to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal justifying the order of discharge or dismissal and the need for the Labour Court to frame a preliminary issue with reference to the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the employer.

1. The petitioner is the management in all these writ petitions. The writ petitions are filed against the order passed by the first respondent/ Labour Court, Puducherry dated 11.3.2010 in I.A.No.71 of 2007 in I.D.No.32 of 2005(L), I.A.No.77 of 2007 in I.D.No.39 of 2005(L), I.A.No.90 of 2007 in I.D.No.31 of 2005(L), I.A.No.75 of 2007 in I.D.No.37 of 2005(L), I.A.No.81 of 2007 in I.D.No.43 of 2005(L), I.A.No.91 of 2007 in I.D.No.45 of 2005(L), I.A.No.80 of 2007 in I.D.No.42 of 2005(L), I.A.No.76 of 2007 in I.D.No.38 of 2005(L), I.A.No.73 of 2007 in I.D.No.34 of 2005(L), I.A.No.79 of 2007 in I.D.No.41 of 2005(L), I.A.No.82 of 2007 in I.D.No.9 of 2006(L), I.A.No.74 of 2007 in I.D.No.35 of 2007(L), I.A.No.78 of 2007 in I.D.No.40 of 2007(L) and I.A.No.72 of 2007 in I.D.No.33 of 2005(L) respectively.

2. When the matter came up on 9.4.2010, this Court, on finding that the proceeding before the Labour Court is still on a question of framing a preliminary issue, directed notice to be served on the second respondent in these writ petitions privately as well as on the counsel who appeared for the workmen before the Labour Court.

3. It is the case of the management that the second respondent/ workman in each of the writ petitions raised industrial disputes regarding their non employment under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act and they also claimed to set aside their order of dismissal and for a further direction to pass an award reinstating them with back-wages and other benefits. The claim statements filed by the workmen were registered as various industrial disputes and notice was issued to the petitioner/ management.

4. The petitioner/management filed detailed counter statements. In the counter statements, apart from justifying the disciplinary action taken by them, including conducting of a proper domestic enquiry, they also reserved their right to adduce additional evidence, if necessary, to prove the charges before the Labour Court and to justify the action.

5. After filing the counter statements, the petitioner/management also took out various applications in I.A.No.71 of 2007 in I.D.No.32 of 2005(L), I.A.No.77 of 2007 in I.D.No.39 of 2005(L), I.A.No.90 of 2007 in I.D.No.31 of 2005(L), I.A.No.75 of 2007 in I.D.No.37 of 2005(L), I.A.No.81 of 2007 in I.D.No.43 of 2005(L), I.A.No.91 of 2007 in I.D.No.45 of 2005(L), I.A.No.80 of 2007 in I.D.No.42 of 2005(L), I.A.No.76 of 2007 in I.D.No.38 of 2005(L), I.A.No.73 of 2007 in I.D.No.34 of 2005(L), I.A.No.79 of 2007 in I.D.No.41 of 2005(L), I.A.No.82 of 2007 in I.D.No.9 of 2006(L), I.A.No.74 of 2007 in I.D.No.35 of 2007(L), I.A.No.78 of 2007 in I.D.No.40 of 2007(L) and I.A.No.72 of 2007 in I.D.No.33 of 2005(L) respectively, requesting the Labour Court to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted into the charges levelled against the second respondent in these writ petitions as a preliminary issue and to decide the same at the first instance and in the event the domestic enquiry is held to be vitiated then without prejudice to their stand to challenge such a preliminary order to let in oral evidence to substantiate the order of dismissal.

6. On the interim applications filed, the second respondent in these writ petitions filed counter statements stating that under Section 10(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court is bound to adjudicate the issues which are referred and the matters incidental thereto. It was stated that the interim applications were filed after one year after the counter statements were filed and they have also narrated as to how the enquiry was fair and proper. It was stated that no evidence has been recorded either from the workers side or management side and therefore, seeking permission to lead additional evidence amounts to mockery of justice. It was further stated that the domestic enquiry conducted on the alleged charge of violating Civil Court order is also not supported by any legal evidence. It was also asserted that going