JUDGMENT : S.S. Nijjar, J.—Rule. Respondent waives service. Heard forthwith. 2. The Petitioner by the present petition has impugned the orders dated October 26, 1999 and December 15, 1999. 3. By the first order the Tribunal decided 3 preliminary issues raised by the Petitioners before the Central Industrial Tribunal. The issues which were decided were: (i) whether the domestic inquiry held was against the principles of natural justice and fair play, (ii) whether the finding of the inquiry are perverse and (iii) whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the reference. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Jn so far as the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the reference, learned Counsel relied on Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to contend that the Industrial Tribunal would have no jurisdiction. Section 15 ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and confers the same on the Tribunal created under the Act. The expression "Courts" would ordinarily mean Civil Courts. Therefore, jurisdiction conferred upon a Tribunal created by statute to deal with specific issues would not be excluded by virtue of Section 14 of the Act. That contention, therefore, must be rejected. 5. In so far as the contention regarding the holding of an inquiry was vitiated, the reasons disclosed by the Tribunal are that certain documents relied upon were not made available to the workman. Once relevant material was considered without making the same available to the workman there would be an infraction of the principles of natural justice and fair play. The finding on that issue, therefore, cannot be set aside. 6. In so far as the contention that the findings are perverse, once the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the inquiry itself was vitiated there was no further need for the Tribunal to record any finding regarding perversity. Even otherwise I am not inclined to set aside the finding given by the Tribunal on that count. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the said order dated October 26, 1999. 7. In so far as the order dated December 15, 1999 is concerned the Tribunal rejected the application by the petitioners on the ground that they had opportunity to file written statement and to lead evidence in the event the inquiry was set aside. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the said order dated October 26, 1999. 7. In so far as the order dated December 15, 1999 is concerned the Tribunal rejected the application by the petitioners on the ground that they had opportunity to file written statement and to lead evidence in the event the inquiry was set aside. Learned counsel for the Respondent has no objection if the petitioners are permitted to lead evidence before the Tribunal. In the light of that the order dated December 15, 1999 is set aside. The Tribunal will give opportunity to both the parties, if they so desire, to lead evidence before it. In the light of that the following order: (i) Order dated December 15, 1999 is quashed and set aside; (ii) Findings in respect of order dated October 26, 1999 are confirmed; (iii) Since the workman is out of employment for the last over 4 years the Tribunal to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible; (iv) In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. 8. All authorities to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court Certified copy expedited.