Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—These two writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as jointly agreed by the learned counsel for the parties. It was stated at the bar that identical questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions.

2. The petitioner, a public limited company, is engaged in manufacturing and sale of cane sugar through one of its vacuum pan sugar factories at Village Bundaki in District Bijnor. The respondent No. 2 was engaged as temporary clerk in writ petition No. 10682 of 2010 and as weighing clerk in another one. After holding departmental inquiry against each of them, their services were terminated. These workmen raised industrial disputes which have been referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Rampur being Adjudication Case Nos. 12 of 2005, No. 15 of 2005 and 16 of 2005 against Lotan Singh, respondent No. 2 in the writ petition No. 10682 of 2010 and Gyan Prakash and Arun Kumar, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the connected writ petition. All these adjudication cases are pending adjudication. An application giving rise to the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner for framing of the following two issues as preliminary issues :

1. Whether domestic inquiry conducted against the workman is not valid and if so its effect? and

2. Whether the employer has lost confidence in the workman? and if so its effect.

3. The said applications having been dismissed by the common impugned order dated 18th of December, 2009, these petitions have been preferred.

4. Shri Vijay Ratan Agrawal, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Rahul Sahai for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court was not justified in rejecting the said applications in as much as petitioner’s case is that the domestic inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair play and also in accordance with the provisions of the standing orders. Sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the charge-sheeted workmen. The Enquiry Officer, after completing the domestic inquiry submitted his inquiry report. It has been found as a fact that the charge-sheeted workman is guilty of commission of acts and omission of fraud in pursuance of design of cheating and fraud with a view to cause huge financial losses to the sugar factory. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that before passing of the dismissal order, a fair and proper domestic inquiry inquiring about the charges against the charge-sheeted workman was conducted wherein the workman was found guilty. In the written statement filed on behalf of the workman, the legality and validity of the domestic inquiry is being challenged on the ground that the said domestic inquiry was not fair and proper and no opportunity to cross-examine the employer’s witnesses was given and the services have been terminated illegally. In this fact situation, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court should decide the question relating to the validity of the domestic inquiry first as a preliminary issue and therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in rejecting the application filed on behalf of the Management, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition No. 10682 of 2010.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the workman through Sri Vikrant Pandey, Advocate. Sri Vikrant Pandey, Advocate, the learned counsel submits that the so-called inquiry conducted by the petitioner was of no use as it was conducted under the effect and pressure of the petitioner company therefore such an inquiry cannot be held valid, proper or legal. Elaborating the argument, he submits that the Labour Court has not committed any illegality in refusing to frame the two issues as proposed by the Management of the petitioner company by the impugned order. In this connection, reliance was placed by him on a Full Bench Decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Swarup Vegetable Produ