JUDGMENT:- By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur on 8.8.2001 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for framing and deciding the preliminary issue about the legality or otherwise of the domestic enquiry. 2. The petitioner - corporation is a Government of India Undertaking and has a plant at Chandrapur. The respondent no.2 joined the services of the petitioner as General workman on 1.4.1987. Since he remained absent from duty without permission or intimation, the charge sheet was issued against respondent no.2 and after holding an enquiry the services of the respondent no.2 were terminated. The respondent no.2 raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer and since the conciliation had failed a reference was made for adjudication of the same by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour. The respondent no.2 filed the statement of claim. The petitioner corporation filed the written statement and also filed an application for framing and deciding the preliminary issue about the legality or otherwise of the domestic enquiry. The C.G.I.T., Nagpur however by the impugned order dated 8.8.2001, rejected the application by holding that all the issues would be decided together. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 8.8.2001 by this petition. 3. Shri. R. M. Puranik, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the C.G.I.T., Nagpur committed serious error in rejecting the application without properly hearing the petitioner and without considering the case law cited by the petitioner corporation before the C.G.I.T. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a well settled position of law that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication, the Labour Court should decide the preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in 1975(2) SCC Page 661. The learned counsel for the petitioner then relied on two unreported judgments of this court in Writ Petition Nos.4712/2002 and 1874/2001. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 supported the order passed by the C.G.I.T., Nagpur on 8.8.2001. 5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the impugned order dated 8.8.2001. The learned counsel for the petitioner then relied on two unreported judgments of this court in Writ Petition Nos.4712/2002 and 1874/2001. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 supported the order passed by the C.G.I.T., Nagpur on 8.8.2001. 5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the impugned order dated 8.8.2001. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1975(2) SCC Page 661 that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication, the Labour Court should first decide the preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry had violated the principles of natural justice. The occasion to do so would not arise where there is no domestic enquiry or defective domestic enquiry is admitted by the employer. The Supreme Court observed that when the matter is in controversy between the parties that issue must be decided as a preliminary issue. In the instant case, it was the case of the petitioner corporation that the enquiry was in conformity with the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice, though it was the case of the respondent no.2 that enquiry was not legal and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In such circumstances, it was necessary for the C.G.I.T.. To have allowed the application filed by the petitioner for framing and deciding the preliminary issue about the legality or otherwise of the domestic enquiry. The C.G.I.T. rejected the application by relying on the decision reported in 1996(2) CLR Page 234. It is necessary to note that in the said reported decision, the preliminary issue was not about the fairness or otherwise of the domestic enquiry and the preliminary issue was whether the opposite party was an industry or not. Such is not the case here. This case is squarely covered by decision reported in 1975(2) SCC Page 661. The C.G.I.T., therefore, ought to have framed the issue of legality or otherwise of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and ought to have allowed the application for framing and deciding the preliminary issue. 6. In the result the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the C.G.I.T. on 8.8.2001 is hereby quashed and set aside. The application filed by the petitioner for framing and deciding the preliminary issue about the legality or otherwise of the domestic enquiry is allowed. 6. In the result the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the C.G.I.T. on 8.8.2001 is hereby quashed and set aside. The application filed by the petitioner for framing and deciding the preliminary issue about the legality or otherwise of the domestic enquiry is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.