Judgment :- 1. The 2nd respondent was working as a salesman in the sales depot of the petitioners management at Titakudy Co-optex show room. He was issued a charge memo on 23.8.1989 alleging that he misappropriated certain amounts and also falsified certain records and thereafter an enquiry was conducted. He was found guilty of the charges and based on the enquiry report, he was dismissed form service by order dated 22.4.1991. The petitioner took up the matter of his non-employment before the conciliation officer, which ended in failure. Thereafter, he went before the 1st respondent Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute in I.D.No.485 of 1992 relating to his non-employment. The Labour Court framed the preliminary issue as to the validity of enquiry and passed an award on 13.10.2009 holding that the enquiry conducted by the writ petitioner was not fair and proper. The writ petitioner is now before this Court with the present writ petition to quash the aforesaid preliminary order dated 13.10.2009 in I.D.No.485 of 1992 passed by the first respondent. Notice of motion was ordered on 19.12.2009. 2. Heard Mr. N. Thiagarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Hidayathulla Khan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the first respondent Labour Court committed an error in holding that the enquiry was not fair and proper. He submits that the second respondent was given all opportunities. Inspite of the same the first respondent held that the second respondent was not given reasonable opportunities in the enquiry. 4. The Labour Court found that though the second respondent sent telegram dated 30.11.1990 to the enquiry officer that he was not well, enquiry was conducted exparte and the second respondent was not given opportunity. According to the petitioner, the said finding of the Labour Court is erroneous. The telegram was received after the enquiry was over. Therefore, Labour Court committed error in holding that the second respondent was not given opportunity. 5. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the second respondent was not well and therefore he sent a letter and two telegrams on 30.11.1990. The letter could have reached 2 or 3 days later. But the telegrams could have reached immediately. Therefore, Labour Court committed error in holding that the second respondent was not given opportunity. 5. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the second respondent was not well and therefore he sent a letter and two telegrams on 30.11.1990. The letter could have reached 2 or 3 days later. But the telegrams could have reached immediately. In any event, it is submitted that though the enquiry officer set the second respondent exparte, on receipt of the telegrams the management ought to have given opportunity by re-opening the enquiry. The learned counsel for the second respondent further contends that the preliminiary order of the Labour Court put in issue in this writ petition could be adjudicated after the final award is passed. Hence, this writ petition is not maintainable against the preliminary award. 6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1999(1) LLJ 949 [Tube Products Employees Union v. Management of Tube Products of India and another] 7. I have considered the submission made by either side. In view of the categorical law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court as well as this Court in various decisions, this Court cannot interfere with a preliminary order of the Labour Court. The employer or workman could very well agitate the award passed on preliminary point after the final award is passed. 8. In 2008(4) CTC 465 [ITC Ltd., v. Industrial Tribunal and 22 others] it is held as follows:- "8. Apart from the Honble Apex Court right from the case of Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P.Mundhe, AIR 1975 SC 1900 and D.P. Maheswari v. Delhi Administration, 1983 (2) LLJ 425 SC frowned upon interference by Courts on a preliminary point when the point is on which the interference is sought for can be challenged after the final award is passed. Such interference was never encouraged by the Supreme Court in the interest of expediting quick disposal of cases by the Industrial Tribunal." 9. Since I am of the considered view that the writ petition itself is not maintainable on the preliminary issue as the same could be agitated by the petitioner even after the final award is passed, I am not going into the arguments advanced by the petitioner on merits and the reply given by the second respondent thereto. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequnetly, connected M.P.is closed.