JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - In these writ applications the employer has assailed the legality of Orders Dated 06.05.2008 & 07.05.2008 as well as award dated 08.05.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela (for short 'the Tribunal') in I.D. Case No. 8 of 2004. 2. I.D Case No. 8 of 2004 was initiated upon receipt of the following reference for adjudication under Annexure-1 from the State Government: Whether the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on Smt. Jouni Tirkey with effect from 29.04.2003 by M/s Sarada Enterprises, Contractor, Rajgangpur is legal and/or justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to? In her statement of claim at Annexure-2 the workman Smt. Jouni Tirkey assailed, inter alia, the fairness & propriety of enquiry by pleading at paragraph-21 as follows: That, after receiving the findings of the enquiry the second party workman made the objection that the enquiry was not fair & proper because the enquiry officer was hired by the employer, no opportunity was given to take the help of an advocate the enquiry officer was not an independent person but a paid employee of the principal. The workman was not provided the subsistence allowance, bringing the extraneous matters to the purview of the enquiry. Relevant documents & list of witnesses were not provided to the workman. The management representative has not produced the explanation to the show cause submitted by the workman. (sic). The employer filed written statement under Annexure-3 contending, inter alia,: That the propriety & fairness of the domestic enquiry may kindly be taken up as a preliminary issue & in case the same is answered in negative, the First Party craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to lead evidence & justify its action by adducing evidence in this Hon'ble. Tribunal. On the basis of such pleadings, Learned Tribunal by Order Dated 24.11.2005 settled four issues for adjudication under Annexure-4 of which issue No. II reads as follows: Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was fair & proper? Thereafter, I.D. Case No. 8 of 2004 appears to have been adjourned till 26.03.2008 when evidence of witness of workman WW-1 was recorded & case was adjourned to 26.4.2008 when evidence of WWs 2 & 3 was recorded & case was adjourned to 06.05.2008. Thereafter, I.D. Case No. 8 of 2004 appears to have been adjourned till 26.03.2008 when evidence of witness of workman WW-1 was recorded & case was adjourned to 26.4.2008 when evidence of WWs 2 & 3 was recorded & case was adjourned to 06.05.2008. On 6.5.2008 the employer filed application under Annexure-5 accompanied by memo of citation under Annexure-6 renewing the prayer to decide the fairness & propriety of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue. Though evidence of one witness of the employe, M.W. No. 1 was recorded on 06.05.2008, Learned Tribunal by Order Dated 06.05.2008 under Annexure-8 rejected the prayer to decide the legality of domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue & adjourned the case to 07.05.2008. On 07.05.2008 employer filed application under Annexure-7 to adjourn the case for examination of other witnesses & the workman also filed a petition for time to argue the case. However, by Order Dated 07.05.2008 under Annexure-8 Learned Tribunal rejected both the applications & posted the case for passing award to 08.05.2008 when the impugned award holding the action of the management in dismissing the workman to be neither legal nor justified & directing her reinstatement in service without back wages was passed. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it is well-settled that if the domestic enquiry conducted by the employer is irregular, invalid or improper, the Labour Court or the Tribunal has the duty to give an opportunity to the employer to prove his case & in doing so the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to try the merit of the charge itself. In view of such settled position of law it is upon the Tribunal to make known its decision to the parties on the aspect of the legality & propriety of the enquiry before adjudicating other issues so that employer can avail of the opportunity to justify the finding in the enquiry. In view of such settled position of law it is upon the Tribunal to make known its decision to the parties on the aspect of the legality & propriety of the enquiry before adjudicating other issues so that employer can avail of the opportunity to justify the finding in the enquiry. On the basis of such submissions, it was argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the workman having assailed the validity & propriety of domestic enquiry in her statement of claims & the employer also in the written statement having urged the Learned Tribunal to take up the issue of validity & propriety of domestic enquiry for adjudication as a preliminary issue, Order Dated 06.05.2008 passed by the Learned Tribunal rejecting Petitioner's prayer to decide the issue as a preliminary issue is liable to be quashed. In this connection Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe Shambhu Nath Goyal Vs. Bank of Baroda and Others, & Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Smt. Lakshmidevamma and Another, . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further contend that the Learned Tribunal not only illegally refused to take up issue No. II relating to validity & propriety of the domestic enquiry for adjudication as a preliminary issue, but also against the principle of natural justice abruptly closed the proceeding rejecting the prayer of the Management to adduce further evidence by Order Dated 07.05.2008. Thereby Learned Tribunal denied the employer of reasonable opportunity to prove its case. Such arbitrary closure of the proceeding has rendered not only the Order Dated 07.05.2008 but also the award itself unsustainable in law. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sohan Lal Gupta (Dead) thr. L.Rs. and Others Vs. Smt. Asha Devi Gupta and Others, in support of the contention. 4. I reply, Learned Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 2 workman would submit that as award dated 08.05.2008 has already been passed upon adjudication of all the issues including issue No. II relating to validity & propriety of the domestic enquiry, the question as to whether the jurisdictional issue ought to have been taken up for adjudication as a preliminary issue has been rendered redundant. Party No. 2 workman would submit that as award dated 08.05.2008 has already been passed upon adjudication of all the issues including issue No. II relating to validity & propriety of the domestic enquiry, the question as to whether the jurisdictional issue ought to have been taken up for adjudication as a preliminary issue has been rendered redundant. Learned Tribunal has passed the award against the Management upon consideration of all the issues upon reference to materials placed before it. 5. Perusal of the Order Dated 6.5.2008 reveals that foremost reason which is stated to have prompted the Learned Tribunal to reject the employer's motion to decide the issue of fairness & propriety of domestic enquiry is that application for preliminary issue was filed after closure of evidence from the side of the workman. According to the Tribunal adjudication of preliminary issue would have caused delay for which all the issues were required to be adjudicated together. The reason assigned by the Learned Tribunal is factually incorrect & legally untenable. Admittedly, in view of stand taken by the workman in the statement of claim that the domestic enquiry was not fair & proper, employer in the written statement itself at the very threshold made prayer to take up issue of propriety & fairness of domestic enquiry for adjudication as a preliminary issue. It was further prayed that in case preliminary issue was decided in negative, employer may be granted leave to lead evidence & justify its action by adducing evidence before the Tribunal. Adjudication of the issue of validity of the domestic enquiry as preliminary issue is not confined to procedural aspect only. Rationale behind necessity of taking up such issue for adjudication as a preliminary issue is just opposite to the reason assigned by the Learned Tribunal to reject the employer's prayer. Instead of causing delay, adjudication of the preliminary issue of validity of the domestic enquiry ensures promptitude in settlement of labour dispute. 6. Question of adjudication of issue of validity of domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue arose for consideration in The Cooper Engineering Limited v. Shri P.P. Mundhe (supra). Instead of causing delay, adjudication of the preliminary issue of validity of the domestic enquiry ensures promptitude in settlement of labour dispute. 6. Question of adjudication of issue of validity of domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue arose for consideration in The Cooper Engineering Limited v. Shri P.P. Mundhe (supra). In the very first paragraph of the Judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the important question which had been pinpointed in the appeal by special leave was whether when a domestic inquiry held by an employer is found by the labour Court as violative of the principles of natural justice there is any duty cast upon that Court to give an opportunity to the employer to adduce evidence afresh before it & whether failure to do so would vitiate its award. In answering the question, it was held: We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer, there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the labour Court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue. We should also make it clear that there will be 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, can be agitated even after the final award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication. 7. The question again came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Ors. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication. 7. The question again came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Ors. (supra) wherein it was held: xxx when the question arises in a reference u/s 10 of the Act after the workman had been punished pursuant to a finding of guilt recorded against him in the domestic enwhen" "xxx when the question arises in a reference u/s 10 of the Act after the workman had been punished to a finding of guilt recorded against him in the domestic enquiry there is no question of the management filing any application for permission to lead further evidence in support of the charge or charges framed against the workman, for the defect in the domestic enquiry is pointed out by the workman in his written claim statement filed in the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal after the reference had been received & the management has the opportunity to look into that statement before it files its written statement of defence in the enquiry before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal & would make the request for the opportunity in the written statement itself. If it does not choose to do so at that stage it cannot be allowed to do it at any later stage of the proceedings by filing any application for the purpose which may result I delay which may lead to wrecking the morale of the workman & compel him to surrender which he may not otherwise do. 8. Correctness of law laid down in Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Ors. (supra) was examined by a constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Lakshmidevamma (Smt.) and Anr. (supra). At para 17 of the Judgment it was held: Keeping in mind the object of providing an opportunity to the management to adduce evidence before the Tribunal/Labour Court, we are of the opinion that the directions issued by this Court in Shambhu Nath Goyal case need not be varied, being just & fair. (supra). At para 17 of the Judgment it was held: Keeping in mind the object of providing an opportunity to the management to adduce evidence before the Tribunal/Labour Court, we are of the opinion that the directions issued by this Court in Shambhu Nath Goyal case need not be varied, being just & fair. There can be no complaint from the management side for this procedure because this opportunity of leading evidence is being sought by the management only as an alternative plea & not as an admission of illegality in its domestic enquiry. At the same time, it is also of advantage to the workmen inasmuch as they will be put to notice of the fact that the management is likely to adduce fresh evidence, hence, they can keep their rebuttal or other evidence ready. This procedure also eliminates the likely delay in permitting the management to make belated application whereby the proceedings before the Labour Court/ Tribunal could get prolonged. In our opinion, the procedure laid down in Shambhu Nath Goyal case is just & fair. 9. Thus, it was obligatory on the part of the Learned Tribunal to take up the issue of validity of domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue &, in case the issue was decided against the employer, to grant the employer an opportunity to adduce evidence in view of the request made in the written statement. No doubt issue No. II relating to validity of domestic enquiry has also been decided along with other three issues by the Learned Tribunal while, passing the award for which ordinarily, it would not be proper to direct re-adjudication of the jurisdictional issue afresh as a preliminary issue. However, Learned Tribunal appears to have arbitrarily closed the evidence from the side of the employer by Order Dated 07.05.2008 after rejecting employer's petition to adjourn the case to enable examination of further witnesses on its behalf. No doubt, I.D. Case No. 8 of 2004 was pending for disposal since the year 2004. However, order-sheet of the case does not reveal that delay can be attributed to the conduct of the employer. The case appears to have been adjourned mostly due to absence of the Presiding Officer. While closing the proceeding on 07.05.2008 Learned Tribunal appears to have rejected also petition filed by the workman for time to argue the case. However, order-sheet of the case does not reveal that delay can be attributed to the conduct of the employer. The case appears to have been adjourned mostly due to absence of the Presiding Officer. While closing the proceeding on 07.05.2008 Learned Tribunal appears to have rejected also petition filed by the workman for time to argue the case. Though employer's witness M.W. No. 1 was examined on 06.05.2008 only & no memo was filed by the employer stating that no further witness was to be examined, the Learned Tribunal appears to have closed the evidence from the side of the employer unilaterally observing that the employer did not examine any witness when opportunity was provided & that petition to examine further witnesses appears to be an attempt to delay disposal of the case. Under the facts & circumstances of the case, there is no foundation for such observation. Therefore, Learned Tribunal not only deprived the employer of the right to get the jurisdictional issue decided as a preliminary issue & adduce additional evidence, but also shut out evidence' the employer was entitled in law to place. Closure of the case by the Learned Tribunal by rejecting employer's request to examine other witnesses amounts to violation of principles of natural justice by depriving the employer of reasonable opportunities to place its case. 10. In the case of The Technological Institute of Textiles Vs. Workmen and Others under somewhat similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: We are constrained to remark that this criticism is well founded & the Tribunal has been doing nothing but merely adjourning the matter for over two years at the request of the Respondents. Ultimately, on 20.7.1967, the Tribunal, when a request on behalf of the Appellant was made for leave to adduce evidence, rejected that request & closed the case of the management suo motu. It has thus shut out evidence that the Appellant was entitled in law to place before the Tribunal. It may be pertinent to note that even the workman wanted to examine the Accountant of the Appellant & the Accountant did not appear as a witness, the statements produced by him were found to be not complete ad satisfactory. In fact, it was represented on behalf of the Appellant that it will furnish the necessary statements in that regard to enable that witness to give proper evidence before the Tribunal. In fact, it was represented on behalf of the Appellant that it will furnish the necessary statements in that regard to enable that witness to give proper evidence before the Tribunal. There is no controversy that the Appellant did keep up the undertaking given before the Tribunal by making available the statements the very next day. In spite of the helpful attitude adopted by the management, it is rather regrettable that the Tribunal should have closed the proceedings very abruptly on 20.7.1967 without permitting the Appellant to produce evidence on its behalf. To say the least, this attitude of the Tribunal is highly arbitrary & unjust. 11. In Sohan Lal Gupta (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. v. Asha Devi Gupta (Smt.) and Ors. (supra) it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for constituting a reasonable opportunity, the following conditions are required to be observed: 1. Each party must have notice that the hearing is to take place. 2. Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to be present at the hearing, together with his advisers & witnesses. 3. Each party must have the opportunity to be present throughout the hearing. 4. Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to present evidence & argument in support of his own case. 5. Each party must have a reasonable opportunity to test his opponent's case by cross-examining his witnesses, presenting rebutting evidence & addressing oral argument. 6. The hearing must, unless the contrary is expressly agreed, be the occasion on which the parties present the whole of their evidence & argument. 12. It is obvious from the impugned award that Learned Tribunal took up adjudication of jurisdictional issue No. II together with issue No. III relating to legality of the punishment of dismissal imposed on the workman. In answering issue No. II it has been curtly held by the Learned Tribunal that as the workman is an illiterate lady & no subsistence allowance was paid to her after suspension, the domestic enquiry cannot be held to be fair & proper. In such circumstances, it is found just to remand the proceeding to the Tribunal for adjudication of issue No. II as a preliminary issue & proceed to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with principles referred to above. 13. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed. In such circumstances, it is found just to remand the proceeding to the Tribunal for adjudication of issue No. II as a preliminary issue & proceed to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with principles referred to above. 13. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are allowed. The Orders Dated 06.05.2008 & 07.05.2008 as well as award dated 08.05.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela in I.D. Case No. 8 of 2004 are quashed. Learned Tribunal shall resume the proceeding from the stage as it stood on 06.05.2008 in the light of directions made above. Final Result : Allowed