CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is the Management. It is aggrieved by the order of the Presiding officer, Labour Court, Mysore made in reference No. 95 of 1981 on its file. ( 2 ) THE said reference went before that Court on account of the dispute raised by the I Party-Workmen on behalf of one M. Raghavan, whose dismissal was questioned. It was the contention of the management before the Labour Court that it had held a domestic enquiry on specific charges of misconduct and as the same was proved against Raghavan, it had resulted in his dismissal. In that behalf, in addition to the issue whether the dismissal was legal and proper, preliminary issue was also framed as to whether domestic enquiry was legal and proper and it was decided against the management on the ground that the charge was vague and therefore, the domestic enquiry was improper and illegal. That conclusion has been reached on account of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sawai singh v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1986 sc 995 ). ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said finding, the present Writ Petition is filed. ( 4 ) THIS Court has taken the view that as a rule, preliminary, issue and findings thereon cannot be separately agitated under article 226. Whether it goes against the workmen or the management, the same must be challenged when the final award is made. On that ground alone, this petition is liable to be rejected. ( 5 ) BUT one does not rule out the possibility, that there may be a class of cases in which an adverse finding on preliminary issue may affect a party prejudicially and therefore, he or it may be permitted to agitate the same under Article 226 soonafter it is recorded by the Labour court or the Tribunal. However, on the facts of this case, it is unnecessary to re-examine that wider question. In a proper case, that may be gone into. ( 6 ) SO far as this case is concerned, annexure 'b', stated to be the charge- sheet, discloses no misconduct whatsoever. It does not specify the time, date and the manner in which the alleged three misconducts were committed by the petitioner. In a proper case, that may be gone into. ( 6 ) SO far as this case is concerned, annexure 'b', stated to be the charge- sheet, discloses no misconduct whatsoever. It does not specify the time, date and the manner in which the alleged three misconducts were committed by the petitioner. It is for that reason that the Labour Court recorded, the charge as being vague, there was no proper opportunity for defence of those charges and therefore, domestic enquiry was in violation of rules of natural justice and as such, illegal and improper. That finding recorded is in accordance with the law declared by the Supreme Court. This Petition is misconceived. It is rejected. Petitioner is at liberty to pursue its legal remedies in the Labour Court in accordance with law. --- *** --- .