JUDGMENT : C.R. Dash, J. 1. The management-petitioner in this writ application has impugned the order dated 24.11.2012 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No. 66 of 2010. 2. Learned Industrial Tribunal, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P. Mundhe, AIR 1975 SC 1990, took up the issue of fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue. Though many grounds had been raised by the Opposite Party-workman regarding the fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry, learned Tribunal answered preliminary issue in favour of the Opposite Party-workman mainly on two grounds:- (1) The enquiry having been conducted in Hindi without affording any opportunity to the Opposite Party-workman to exercise his option regarding the language in which the enquiry is to be conducted, the enquiry so conducted suffers from impropriety and unfairness. (2) The Charge Sheet and other annexures attached thereto having been supplied to the Opposite Party-workman in Hindi language and no opportunity having been afforded to him to inspect the documents relied on by the management in course of the enquiry, the fairness of the enquiry is affected. 3. Learned counsel for the management-petitioner submits that the findings of the learned Industrial Tribunal on the aforesaid score are illegal, perverse and against the evidence on record on the following grounds:- (a) The Enquiry Officer having been examined as M.W.1 before the Industrial Tribunal has proved through his oral evidence as well as documentary evidence that the Opposite Party-workman had given his consent to conduct the domestic enquiry in Hindi language. (b) In Annexure-16 to the writ application, i.e., the evidence of M.W.1 at Para-4, the Opposite Party-workman has stated that he would defend himself and will not examine any other witness and he will also raise no objection in the enquiry being conducted in Hindi. (c) At para-5 of Annexure-16, M.W.1 has further stated that the Opposite Party-workman did not raise any objection to conduct enquiry in Hindi language. (d) In Annexure-16 in his cross-examination M.W.1 at para-16, has stated that in his order sheet (Ext.C), he has mentioned that on being asked as to whether the Opposite Party-workman had any objection, if the enquiry proceeding be recorded in Hindi, he (workman) answered in the negative. (d) In Annexure-16 in his cross-examination M.W.1 at para-16, has stated that in his order sheet (Ext.C), he has mentioned that on being asked as to whether the Opposite Party-workman had any objection, if the enquiry proceeding be recorded in Hindi, he (workman) answered in the negative. (e) Learned Industrial Tribunal has relied on Clause-14 (4) (bb) of the Model Standing Order, but there is no such clause in the Model Standing Order and Clause-14 (4) (bb) is there in Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946, which is not applicable to the present parties. The parties are governed by the Orissa Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Central Rules, 1946, but there is no such provision similar to Section-14 (4) (bb) in the Orissa Rules. 4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-workman, on the other hand, submits that in view of the settled law, this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, should not enter into matters of appreciation of evidence so far as the findings under the preliminary issue is concerned. It is further submitted that in view of the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cooper Engineering Ltd. (supra), this Court should not intervene at the stage of order passed on preliminary issue, when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award. It is settled in law that (Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Lakshmi Devamma and another, AIR 2001 SC 2090 ) and Cooper Engineering Ltd. Supra, if the domestic enquiry is held to be irregular, invalid or improper in the findings on the preliminary issue, the Tribunal may give an opportunity to the employer to prove his case, and in doing so the Tribunal tries the merit itself, and for trial on merit, the prayer has to be normally made by the management in its pleading made in the written statement. In Para-10 of Annexure-14, i.e., the written statement of the management, it is averred as follows:- “10. That it is humbly submitted that the 1st Party has conducted the fair and proper enquiry by giving all reasonable opportunity to the 2nd Party. The fairness of the enquiry may kindly be taken and adjudicated as a preliminary issue since the 1st Party Management in exercise of his Managerial power has conducted a fair enquiry. That it is humbly submitted that the 1st Party has conducted the fair and proper enquiry by giving all reasonable opportunity to the 2nd Party. The fairness of the enquiry may kindly be taken and adjudicated as a preliminary issue since the 1st Party Management in exercise of his Managerial power has conducted a fair enquiry. If the Learned Court for any reason will find the enquiry conducted by the 1st Party is not fair and proper, the 1st Party may kindly be afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence on merit.” 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Opposite Party-workman that, in the written statement, the management-petitioner has prayed for opportunity to adduce evidence on merit and the learned Industrial Tribunal has also given such opportunity to the management-petitioner, but the management-petitioner, without availing such opportunity, has come up before this Court by filing this writ application to unnecessarily delay the proceeding. 6. Perusal of the impugned order vide Annexure-1 shows that the learned Industrial Tribunal has painstakingly gone into every details of the matter in passing the order. In recording the conclusion/findings regarding the language in which the enquiry should be conducted, learned Tribunal has taken into consideration all the materials available on record. There may be a mistake on the part of the Tribunal so far as its reliance on Clause-14 (4) (bb) of the Model Standing Order is concerned. However, such a Model Standing Order is not brought to my notice at the time of hearing. 7. Be that as it may, common sense and principle of natural justice demands that the enquiry should be conducted in the language, which is understood by the delinquent or the workman. In the present case, the enquiry has been conducted in Hindi language, that too in one sitting. The enquiry proceeding commenced and completed on 10.09.2008. The Enquiring Officer must have written the order sheet portion after completion of the enquiry in which question of consent of the Opposite Party-workman is reflected. Here consent is not important. Important is option to be exercised by the Opposite Party-workman regarding the language in which the enquiry is to be conducted. The enquiry is to be conducted either in English or in Hindi or in a language with which the workman is well conversant. Here consent is not important. Important is option to be exercised by the Opposite Party-workman regarding the language in which the enquiry is to be conducted. The enquiry is to be conducted either in English or in Hindi or in a language with which the workman is well conversant. Such a requirement is also demand of the principle of natural justice inasmuch as, if the workman/delinquent does not understand the language in which the enquiry is conducted, he may not be in a position to defend himself properly. From the impugned order, it is also found that the Opposite Party-workman vide Ext.4, had made a request to the management to make all correspondences to him in English only and had also requested the management to supply him a copy of Letter No.64/25550, dated 21.11.2007, and in response to the same, the management-petitioner vide Ext.5 supplied a copy of the said letter to the Opposite Party-workman in English, but subsequently all the correspondences including the enquiry were held in Hindi. Such a fact itself shows that the Opposite Party-workman does not have any idea about Hindi language or at least he has no workable knowledge in Hindi language. Learned Industrial Tribunal has taken into consideration different decisions of the Bombay High Court to come to a conclusion that the enquiry having been conducted in Hindi, the same was unfair and unjust. I do not find any reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the learned Industrial Tribunal by unnecessarily going into the evidence adduced, which has been taken care of by the learned Industrial Tribunal. 8. So far as supply of charge sheet and annexures attached to it in Hindi is concerned, learned Industrial Tribunal relied on the case of G.R. Venkateswar Reddy v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 1995 Lab. L.R. 338 and held thus:- “But, as already observed, the copy of the charge sheet (Ext.6) which was served on the workman was in Hindi and for that there can be a valid presumption that the workman could not understand the contents of the charge sheet and its annexures. The enquiry proceeding further reflects that without ascertaining from the workman as to whether he had any objection on the admissibility of the documents relied on by the Management, the Enquiry Officer simply marked them as Exts.M/1 to M/5 on being merely submitted by the Presenting Officer. The enquiry proceeding further reflects that without ascertaining from the workman as to whether he had any objection on the admissibility of the documents relied on by the Management, the Enquiry Officer simply marked them as Exts.M/1 to M/5 on being merely submitted by the Presenting Officer. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that the workman was not furnished with copies of the documents nor was he permitted to have adequate inspection of the documents.” The aforesaid finding of the learned Tribunal is quite clear and within comprehension. When no option had been given to the Opposite Party-workman regarding the language in which the enquiry is to be conducted, it was rightly held that supplying him documents and charge sheet in Hindi is only an exercise in futility so far as understanding of the workman is concerned. It may be fulfillment of a requirement in form, but cannot be held to be fulfillment of requirement of the principle of natural justice in spirit. I, therefore, do not find any justification to differ from the findings of the learned Industrial Tribunal on this score. 9. In view of the discussions supra, the writ application is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 10. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Industrial Tribunal on the date fixed for further hearing in the matter.