ORDER : K. Raviraja Pandian, J.—The writ petition is filed against the order of the Labour Court, dated October 16, 2003, made in I.D. No. 29 of 2000 in respect of the preliminary issue as to whether the enquiry has been conducted in a fair and proper manner and o ultimately giving a finding that the enquiry has not been conducted in a fair and proper manner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner put in issue the order on the ground that while deciding the issue on a preliminary issue, the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and given a finding that the relevant clause of the Standing Orders under which the employee has been chargesheeted was not mentioned in the . chargesheet and that when it was contended that the petitioner was placed under suspension from December 10, 1998 to January 12, 1999, it was not clear as to whether the petitioner was working during the period relying on the documents, which has been marked as Exhibit M12. Learned counsel very seriously argued that if these two findings are allowed to remain, then it would tantamount to deciding the main issue itself and as such the findings have to be vacated so as to have a fair award finally. 3. On the other hand, Sri N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that whatever may be the finding arrived at by the Labour Court at the preliminary stage that finding cannot be put in issue. Even these issues can be reappreciated by the Labour Court on the basis of evidence to be let in. Learned counsel for the second respondent relied on two Division Bench- judgments of this Court in Shree Kumar Textiles (Private) Ltd. v. Labour Court and Anr. 1997 (3) L.L.N. 376 and in Agro Cargo Transport Ltd. v. E. Murugan and Anr. 1995 I LLJ 544. 4. I heard the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. 5. I am of the view that the findings with which the petitioner is stated to be aggrieved cannot be stated to be final decision taken on the issue. In order to give a finding as to whether the inquiry has been conducted in a proper and fair manner, necessarily the facts , have to be stated and a speaking order has to be passed. In order to give a finding as to whether the inquiry has been conducted in a proper and fair manner, necessarily the facts , have to be stated and a speaking order has to be passed. In such process, it is incumbent upon the Labour Court to discuss the fact and also couch the wording so as to give reasoning for arriving at the finding on the preliminary issue. That by itself cannot be put against the Labour Court. If no reasoning is stated to answer the preliminary issue that would be put against the Labour Court to contend that the Labour Court has jumped over the finding without discussing the point. It is well settled proposition of law that the order passed by the Labour Court should satisfy the requirements of speaking order. That the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court are correct or not, is not a matter I for examination at the preliminary stage. The management is equally entitled to have an opportunity to adduce evidence. That is the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Shree Kumar Textile (Private) Ltd. v. Labour Court and Anr. (supra). The same is the law laid down in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Agro Cargo Transport Ltd. v. E. Murugan and Anr. (supra). 6. Hence, I am of the view that the writ petition has to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. The award has to be passed by the Labour Court uninfluenced of any of the findings of the preliminary issue. The interim stay granted is vacated. Rule nisi is also discharged. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. and W.V.M.P. are closed. No costs.