Judgment U.P.Singh, J. 1. The Central Government, the appropriate Government within the meaning of Sec.2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short, the Act) referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal: Whether the action of the management in dismissing Shri Garib Ram, Sahadeo Mahto, Sadhan Sao and Charka with effect from 28-7-1981 on the alleged charge of assault and intention to steal on 4/5-4-1979, when on the same charge they have been acquitted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, without any shadow of doubt, is justified and reasonable? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled? 2. The Counsel appearing for the Employer in relation to the Management of Kedia Open Cast Project of Central Coalfield Limited raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the reference on the ground that the wording of the reference is such that it has to be thrown out purely on the question of law. According to the counsel, reference as worded did not admit of consideration as to whether the dismissal was justified or reasonable. 3. From the impugned order recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, it appears that in course of argument, Sri Murthy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Management specifically gave out that there was no question of going into the propriety of the domestic enquiry and argue the case on merits. In normal course, therefore, the Tribunal was left to consider the question as to whether on the basis of the evidence adduced at the time of domestic enquiry the order of dismissal was justified. But then preliminary objection was raised that the reference as worded did not admit of consideration whether the dismissal was justified or reasonable. 4. In the Case of S.N. Verma V/s. Nagesh Chandra and Anr. 1982 2 L.L.J. 429, Chinnappa Reddy, J., stated: It is a pity that even the Central Government, in all solemnity, refers an Industrial dispute for adjudication, a public sector corporation which is an instrumentality of the State, instead of welcoming a decision by the Tribunal on merits so as to absolve itself of any charge of being a bad employer of victimisation etc., should attempt to evade decision on merits by raising such objections and never thereby satisfied, carry the matter of ten times to the High Court and to the Supreme Court wasting public time and money. It is expected we expect the public Sector Corporation to be model employers and Model litigants. We do not expect them to avoid adjudication or to indulge in luxurious litigation and drag the workmen from Court to Court merely to indicate, not justice, but some rigid technical stand taken up by them. We hope that public sector corporations will henceforth refrain from raising needless objections, fighting needless litigation and adopting needless gestures. In the case of Agra Electric Supply Co. Limited, Agra V/s. Workmen 1983 1 L.L.J. 304. V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. stated: It is plain that industrial jurisprudence is an alloy of law and social justice and one cannot be too pedantic in construing the terms of a reference respecting a dispute for industrial adjudication. 5. In the case of Avon Services Production Agencies (P.) Ltd. V/s. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana and Ors. A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 176. Desai, J., speaking for the Court held: Language or the format which the demand is coached to hardly decisive of the matter. The substance of the matter is as to what was the grievance of the workmen complained of by them or espoused by the Union and what the Industrial Tribunal is called upon to adjudicate. In the case of D.P.N. Maheshwar V/s. Delhi Administration and Ors. A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 153. Chinnappa Reddy, J., stated: Tribunals entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where delay may lead to misery and jeopardise industrial peace, should decide all issues in disputes at the same time without trying some of them as preliminary issues. Nor should High Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, stop proceedings before a Tribunal so that a preliminary issue may be decided by them. Neither the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution nor the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 maybe allowed to be exploited by those who can well afford to wait to the detriment of those, who can ill afford to wait by dragging the latter from Court for adjudication of peripheral issue, avoiding decision on issues more vital to them, Article 226 and Article 136 are not meant to be used to break the existence of workman in this fashion. Tribunals and Courts who are requested to decide preliminary questions must, therefore, ask themselves whether such threshold part adjudication is really necessary and whether it will not lead to other woeful consciences. After all, Tribunals like Industrial Tribunals are constituted to decide expeditiously special kinds of disputes and their jurisdiction to so decide is not to be stiffled by all manner of preliminary objections journeying up and down. 6. Even in the case of Management of Express Newspaper (Private) Limited V/s. The Workers and Ors. -- . on which the petitioners counsel placed reliance on the question of jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to deal with the merit of the disputes, Gajendragadkar, J., held: Since the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal in dealing with industrial disputes referred to it Under Sec.10 is limited by Sec.10(4) to the points specifically mentioned in the reference and the matter incidental thereto, the appropriate Government should frame the relevant orders of reference carefully and the question which are intended to be tried by the Industrial Tribunal should be so worded as to leave no scope for ambiguity or controversy. An order of reference hastily drawn or drawn in a casual manner often gives rise to unnecessary disputes and thereby prolongs the life of industrial adjudication which must always be avoided. Even so, when the question of this kind is raised before the courts, the courts must attempt to construe the reference not too technically or in a pedantic manner, but fairly and reasonably. 7. A brief recital of a few facts touching the controversy would reveal the arena of disputes. Kedia Group of collieries were earlier worked by M/s. Bokaro Ramgarh Limited. The collieries were placed under a lease required by the State of Bihar in December, 1972. These two coal mines were declared as Coal Mines and the Management vested in the Central Government and then the National Coal Development Corporation Limited (in short, N. C.D. C. Ltd.) which was appointed as the custodian of these mines. The collieries were placed under a lease required by the State of Bihar in December, 1972. These two coal mines were declared as Coal Mines and the Management vested in the Central Government and then the National Coal Development Corporation Limited (in short, N. C.D. C. Ltd.) which was appointed as the custodian of these mines. By an order of the Supreme Court, the Receiver was directed to handover the collieries to N. C. D. C. Limited alongwith the entire plan, machinery etc to the said N. C. D. C. As soon as the said Corporation started taking over the mines, hundreds and thousands of people, who staked their claims for employment in the mines and approximately 30,000 persons claimed employment, the Corporation had to evolve a procedure for screening persons in the mines. Finally screening was completed in 1973, and the persons were offered employment. In the process of screening, the otter of appointment was given to various persons. No character verification was made and in due course it was found that some imposters and anti-social elements had got their employments by fradulent means. The law and order problems also increased-The workman, Garib Ram was a category I Mazdoor who joined the services of Kedla Group of Mines in the year 1973. Another workman, Shri Sodhan Sao was employed as a piece rated worker in the Kedia underground project. Two other workers, namely, Shri Sahadeo Mahto and Charku alias Bedeshi were employed as Category II Mazdoor in Kedla Open Cast Project and as piece rated workers in Kedla underground project respectively. 8. In April, 1979, charges were framed by the Colliery Manager against the two workmen, Garib Ram and Sahdeo Mahto in relation to an incident of assault against one security guard. The other two workmen, namely, Sodhan and Charku were also charge-sheeted but not only on the charge that they had aided and abetted the assault of Keredin Bind but also for stealing the drill cable. They committed an act of theft. The workmen submitted their reply to the charges. An enquiry was constituted and Sri R.N. Chatterjee, Administrative Officer, Kedia, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry was conducted against all the four workmen on different dates. The Enquiry report was submitted in March, 1980, holding that the charges levelled against all the workmen were established. The workmen submitted their reply to the charges. An enquiry was constituted and Sri R.N. Chatterjee, Administrative Officer, Kedia, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry was conducted against all the four workmen on different dates. The Enquiry report was submitted in March, 1980, holding that the charges levelled against all the workmen were established. On the basis of the enquiry report, all the four workmen were dismissed from their service with effect from 28-7-1981. 9. It may also be stated that on the basis of a first information report lodged by the concerned security guard, who was alleged to have been assaulted by these workmen, a criminal case was instituted and charges Under Sections 379/511, 342, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed. The Judicial Magistrate by his judgment dated 19-9-1980 acquitted all the workmen of the charges levelled against them. In August, 1981, the Union espoused the cause of the concerned workmen and served a notice on the petitioner threatening strike in a case of failure on the part of the Management to withraw the dismissal order. It was forwarded to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Hazaribagh, and the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), New Delhi for intervention. The conciliation proceeding having failed, a reference Under Sec.10(1) of the Act was made by the appropriate Government for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. As stated earlier, the Industrial Tribunal has recorded in the impugned order that in course of argument, counsel appearing for the Management specially gave out that there was no question of going into the propriety of the domestic enquiry and agreed to argue the case on merits. Therefore, in normal course, the Tribunal was left to determine the question as to whether on the basis of the evidence adduced at the time of domestic enquiry the order of dismissal was justified. But then the learned Counsel for the management raised a preliminary objection that the reference as worded did not admit of consideration as to whether the dismissal was justified or reasonable. However, after hearing both the parties, the preliminary ground was rejected and the Tribunal decided to hear the case on merit. The case was fixed for hearing on merits on 9-11-1982. The Tribunal also held that the fact of acquittal by a Court could not preclude the Management from considering the evidence before the domestic enquiry. However, after hearing both the parties, the preliminary ground was rejected and the Tribunal decided to hear the case on merit. The case was fixed for hearing on merits on 9-11-1982. The Tribunal also held that the fact of acquittal by a Court could not preclude the Management from considering the evidence before the domestic enquiry. The said view of the Tribunal finds support from a decision of this Court in the case of Employers in relation to Modidih Collery of Burrakar Coal Co. Limited V/s. Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal and Ors. 1971 P.L.J.R. 108. that the departmental enquiry is no bar on the same facts on which the order of acquittal has been recorded by a Criminal Court. 10. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is crystal clear that the workmen were complaining about the illegality of the termination of their services and the same had been referred to the Tribunal. Therefore, it is not possible to accept this contention that the reference is incompetent. The language of the format in which the demand is couched is hardly decisive of the matter. The substance of the matter is as to what is the grievance of the workmen complained by them or espoused by the Union and what the Industrial Tribunal was called upon to adjudicate in 1981. Viewed from this angle, the demand referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication is the same which was espoused and raised by the Union. In case of dismissal the main question to be decided is as to whether the conduct of the Management in dismissing the workman is justified. Therefore, the basic question for consideration was whether the dismissal of the concerned workmen was justified and reasonable. The present dispute was made in 1979 and was referred for adjudication by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal in 1981 and the same is still at a preliminary stage. 11. In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed and the Industrial Tribunal is directed to hear the case on merit and dispose of the reference within four months from the date of the receipt of this order. There will be no order as to costs.