Judgment :- F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. This writ petition has been preferred against the order of the first respondent, dated April 18, 2000, declining to go in to the question about the validity of the enquiry in the first instance before going into 9 the merits of the charges levelled against the second respondent. The short facts are : The second respondent who was employed as an attender in the petitioner-institution was dismissed from service for certain acts of misconduct by order, dated August 1, 1986. Before the issuance of the order of dismissal, according to the petitioner, an ex parte enquiry was held. When the second respondent raised the dispute before the first respondent, the petitioner filed a counter stating inter alia contending that the order of dismissal was fully justified and that in the event of first respondent holding that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was not fair and proper or that the findings are perverse, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to prove the charges afresh by leading evidence before it. It is true that the dispute is of the year 1989. The petitioner filed its counter in the year 1990 itself Nevertheless, it appears that the dispute ripened for hearing only in the year 1999. At that point of time, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 330 of 1999 in I.D. No. 78 of 1993 (284/89 on the file of Second Additional Labour Court, Madras) praying before the first respondent to render a finding in the first instance about the validity of the enquiry and about the perversity of the findings based on the said enquiry. The said application was resisted by the second respondent. The said application was resisted by the second respondent. The first respondent by the impugned order, was of the view that after a lapse of 11 years, it would not be justified in countenancing the prayer of the petitioner and on that basis, rejected the petitioner's application.It is a settled law as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India (Private) Ltd. v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India (Private) Ltd. and others reported in AIR 1973 SCC 1227 : 1973 (1) SCC 813 : 1973-I-LLJ-278, in cases where the issue relating to non-employment is posed for consideration before the adjudicating forum like that of the first respondent and when such non-employment was based on certain misconduct stated to have been established in a domestic enquiry, it is incumbent upon the adjudicating forum to first decide the question about the validity of the enquiry before calling upon the parties to adduce evidence on the merits of the misconduct. In other words, by virtue of the settled legal position, the first respondent should first advert to the question about the fairness or otherwise of the enquiry claimed to have been conducted against the delinquent workman by the management and after rendering a finding on that question and in the event of the first respondent holding that the enquiry was not fair or proper, only thereafter it would be open to the first respondent to deal with the issue on merits. The first respondent after coming to a conclusion as to the validity of the enquiry one way or the other and in the event of the management having expressly made a request at the earliest point of time to permit the management to let in evidence on the merits of the misconduct in the event of the enquiry being set aside, the first respondent should give an opportunity to the management to let in evidence on merits. Such a procedure is to be followed scrupulously in those types of cases. Such a procedure is to be followed scrupulously in those types of cases. When that being the settled legal position, the impugned order of the first respondent in declining to follow the said procedure merely because the dispute ripened for hearing after a period of 11 years is not justified.In the circumstances, having regard to the settled legal position I am obliged to interfere with the order of the first respondent impugned in the writ petition and the same is therefore, set aside. The first respondent is directed to decide the question about the validity of the enquiry in the first instance before going into the merits of the misconduct. In the event of the first respondent holding that the enquiry was not fair and proper, thereafter it would be open to the petitioner to let in evidence on the merits of the misconduct as claimed in its counter-statement filed in the dispute. Having regard to the fact that the dispute is of the year 1989, the first respondent shall give top priority to this dispute and dispose of the same by following the settled legal procedure within three months from January 2001. Parties shall render all assistance to the first respondent in the disposal of the dispute. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 11753 of 2000 is closed.