R. K. GULATI, J. By this writ petition two orders dated 5-10-1988 and 19-2-1991 passed by the Central Government In dustrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Kan-pur are challenged. 2. The petitioner was an employee of the new India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short the Company), who was charge-sheeted on 5-6-1984 on the allegations that he remained absent from his duties for more than 90 days which amounted abandonment of service. In the counter affidavit, it is averred that the petitioner was absent for 619 days at a stretch without submitting any application, medical certificate or receipts of purchase of any medicines. After a domestic enquiry into the charges, the ser vices of the petitioner were dispensed with by an order dated 15-6-1985 passed by a Regional Manager of the respondent com pany. Against that order an appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Chair man of the Company. The petitioner then filed conciliation proceedings and, in due course the Central Government referred the dispute to the Central Government In dustrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Kanpur which was registered as Industrial Dis pute No. 111 of 1987. Before the Tribunal, both the parties exchanged their pleadings and adduced their evidence in support of their respective case. The petitioner had soughi before the Tribunal the quashing of the order by which he was removed from service. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner for the consideration of the tribunal was that the Enquiry Officer had not held the enquiry according to rules and he violated the principles of natural justice in holding the enquiry. The respondents submitted before the Tribunal that in view of the facts pleaded in paragraph No. 32 of the written statement, it would be proper if a preliminary issue on the point whether or not the enquiry was conducted properly and fairly in accordance with the principles of natural justice be framed and in case find ings are against the management, an oppor tunity be given to the management to prove the charge against the workman. This re quest of the respondents was not opposed on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly the Tribunal framed the following preliminary issues for its determination by an order dated 5-10-1988 impugned in this writ peti tion: "whether the domestic inquiry was con ducted fairly and properly in accordance with the principles of natural justice. This re quest of the respondents was not opposed on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly the Tribunal framed the following preliminary issues for its determination by an order dated 5-10-1988 impugned in this writ peti tion: "whether the domestic inquiry was con ducted fairly and properly in accordance with the principles of natural justice. " From the order sheet of the Tribunal a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the rejoinder affidavit, it is apparent that after the preliminary issue was framed the proceedings progressed on several dates before the Tribunal. On 19-2-1991 the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal with following prayer: ". . . . . . The Tribunal may be pleased to Sri R. L. Barnwal, Record clerk in the office of opposite party No. 2 to make deposition and the entire case be decided on merits instead of deciding a prelimi nary issue regarding the conduct of enquiry. " In the aforesaid application it was inter-alia stated that the counsel who had appeared before the Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner without any instructions from him and without understanding the implica tions had agreed for framing of the prelimi nary issue. 3. The application was however rejected by the Tribunal with the following order dated 19-2-1991: "there is no force made in the prayer in view of the preliminary issue framed as back as on 5-10-88. If the workman wants to examine Sri R. L. Barnwal as his witness on the preliminary issue he may produce him at his own expenses All that the Tribunai can do for him is tnat n can direct the management 10 relieve Sri Barnwal if the applies for leave in connection with his appearance as witness. With these observations the application is rejected. " 4. On these facts the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the two orders aforesaid. 5. Heard learned counsel for the par ties. 6. With these observations the application is rejected. " 4. On these facts the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the two orders aforesaid. 5. Heard learned counsel for the par ties. 6. It was contended that in deciding the preliminary issue as to whether enquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal will have to go through the same evidence which may be required to be con-sideied while disposing of the entire case and therefore the Tribunal erred in passing the impugned order dated 19-2-1991 reject ing the prayer to decide the whole dispute instead of only preliminary issue in the first instance. 7. About the second part of the case regarding the summoning of Sri R. L. Barnwal, no arguments whatsoever were ad dressed to the Court. 8. Having considered the submissions carefully in my opinion, no case for inter ference has been made out. 9. The point for consideration is whether the Tribunal was legally justified on the facts obtaining in the case in holding that the dispute about the conduct of the domestic enquiry should be decided as a preliminary issue. 10. As already observed the learned Advocate who had appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal did not object to the requ. est of the respondents that the said question may be decided as a preliminary issue. This has been specifically noted in the order dated 5-10-88. The mat ter thereafter was taken up on several dates, as it is indicated by the order sheet, referred earlier but no objection was taken on the first available opportunity after the prelimi nary issue was framed. No explanation has been given for this lapse. 11. Even on merits the petitioner has no case. 12. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd v. Ludh Budh Singh 1972 (1) Labour Law Journal 180, the Supreme Court has | pointed out that when the management | relies on the enquiry conducted by it and | also simultaneously adduces evidence before the Tribunal, without prejudice to its plea that the enquiry proceedings are i proper, it is the duty of the Tribunal, in the first instance, to consider whether the en quiry proceedings conducted by the management are valid and proper. If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the enquiry proceedings have been held proper ly and are valid, the question of considering the evidence adduced before it on merits no longer survives. It was also observed that it is only when the Tribunal holds that the enquiry proceedings had not properly been held that it derives jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the dispute and in such a case it has to consider the evidence adduced before it by the management and decide the matter on the basis of such evidence. The Supreme Court held: when a domestic enquiry has been held by the management and the management relies on the same, it is open to the latter to request the Tribunal to try the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and also ask for an oppor tunity to adduce evidence before the Tribunal, if i the finding on the preliminary issue is against the management. However elaborate and cumber some the procedure may be under such cir cumstances, it is open to the Tribunal to deal with, in the first instance, as a preliminary issue, the validity of the domestic enquiry. " In Cooper Engineering Limited v. P. P. Mundhe, 1975 (2) Labour Law Journal 379, the Apex Court ruled: "we are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal of discharge of an employee is referred for adjudication the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer, there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties, that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced, it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the labour Court. . . . . " In M/s. D. C. M. Shri Ram Industries Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others, 19% (72) Indian Factories and Labour Reports 713 the question arose whether the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was not jus tified in refusing to frame issue regarding domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue. . . . . " In M/s. D. C. M. Shri Ram Industries Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others, 19% (72) Indian Factories and Labour Reports 713 the question arose whether the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was not jus tified in refusing to frame issue regarding domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue. The matter was considered by a Division Bench of this Court on a reference being made by a learned Single Judge, for, there was conflict of opinion in two single Judge decisions of this Court. The Division Bench after reviewing the law on the subject held that the order impugned refusing the prelimi nary issue on domestic enquiry cannot be sustained. In taking that view the decision of this Court in Mis. Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. Presiding Officer Labour Court and others, 1987 (55) FLR 634, was approved. 13. In view of the pronouncements of the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court referred above, it. can not be held that the view of the Tribunal to decide the preliminary issue referred hereinabove in the first instance was erroneous in any man ner. 14. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. 15. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .