JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri Sanjiv Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order of the Labour Court, Kanpur, by which, preliminary issue No. 1 with regard to the fairness of the domestic enquiry, has been decided against the employer. 3. The petitioner is a bank and had dismissed the services of the workman respondent No. 2, who raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, decided issue No. 1, holding that the principles of natural justice was not observed by the employer while conducting the domestic enquiry and, has therefore set-aside the domestic enquiry. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. 4. At the outset, the Court finds this is not the stage for the employer to approach the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In Cooper Engineering Limited v. P.P. Mundhe, 1975 (2) Lab LJ 379, the Supreme Court held that there was no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue, when the matter, if worthy, could be agitated even after the final award. The Supreme Court further held that it was legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at that stage. 6. In S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra and another, 1983 Lab IC 1483, the Supreme Court held that it has become a fashion by the employers to raise preliminary objections especially by the public sector undertaking and whenever an Industrial Dispute was raised or referred to a Tribunal for adjudication, a Public Sector Undertaking, which is an instrumentality of the State, instead of welcoming a decision by the Tribunal on merits, attempts to evade a decision on merits by raising preliminary objections and, upon such rejection, carry the matter to the High Court and to the Supreme Court wasting public time and money. The Supreme Court further held that a public sector undertaking should act as model employers and model litigants, and that, it was not expected from them to indulge in luxurious litigation and drag the workman from Court to Court merely to vindicate some rigid or technical stand taken up by them. 7. The Supreme Court further held that a public sector undertaking should act as model employers and model litigants, and that, it was not expected from them to indulge in luxurious litigation and drag the workman from Court to Court merely to vindicate some rigid or technical stand taken up by them. 7. In D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and others, 1983 Lab IC 1629, the Supreme Court again deplored the action of the employers inviting a decision from a Tribunal on a preliminary objection, and thereafter, carrying the matter to the High Court under Article 226 and to the Supreme Court under Article 136 causing undue delay in disposal of the main dispute. The Supreme Court found, that at one stage, it was prudent for the Court to decide a preliminary issue, but considering the dilatory tactics adopted by the parties, in order to await a decision on merits, the Supreme Court reversed this policy and held that the Labour Court should decide all issues in dispute at the same time and that the High Court should not stop the proceedings before the Tribunal to enable the High Court to decide a preliminary issue and that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be exploited by those who can well afford to wait. The Supreme Court further found that Article 226 of the Constitution was not made to break the resistance of the workman by dragging them in an unnecessary litigation. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that it became necessary for the petitioner bank to approach the Writ Court because after the decision on the preliminary issue nothing further remained to be decided and only a consequential order of passing an award was required to be made by the Tribunal. 9. In my opinion, the, reasoning given by the petitioner is patently misconceived and bereft of merit. The law, as settled by the Supreme Court in various decisions starting from Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd. v. Workman, 1965 (3) SCR 583, to the decision of the Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Lakshmidevamma and another, AIR 2001 SC 2090 , indicates that whenever a domestic enquiry is vitiated by the Labour Court, in that event, it is open to the employer to adduce fresh evidence before the Labour Court to prove the charge against the workman. 10. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is premature and is dismissed at this stage. It would be open to the petitioner to challenge the order of the Labour Court on the preliminary issue after the award is made by the Tribunal. ————