ORDER K.R. MOHAPATRA, J. - Heard Mr. Karunakar Jena, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Management of M/s. Emami Paper Mills Ltd. and Mrs. M. Kanungo, learned Counsel for the Workman-opposite party No.1, namely, Santosh Kumar Moharana. 2. Petitioner-Management in this writ petition seeks to challenge the order dated 07.05. 2015 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.75 of 1995 in deciding the preliminary issue against the petitioner-Management holding that the domestic enquiry held against the Workman is not valid and directing the petitioner-Management to produce its witness for recording evidence. 3. The opposite party No.1-Workman was appointed as a Jr. Carpenter on 01.10.1983. During his incumbency, a domestic enquiry was conducted by the petitioner-Management against the Workman alleging misconduct and the opposite party No.1-Workman being found guilty of the charges was imposed with the punishment of dismissal vide order dated 10.11.1994 (Annexure-3). The Workman being not satisfied with the order of punishment under Annexure-3 moved the Labour Machinery. Conciliation being failed, a failure report was submitted before the appropriate Government on 4.12.1995. Accordingly, the following reference was made for adjudication by the Labour Court. “Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Emami Paper Mills Ltd., Balgopalpur, Balasore in dismissing Sri Santosh Kumar Moharana, Jr. Carpenter, from service with effect from 10.11.1994 is illegal and/or justified and if not, to what relief the Workman is entitled ?” 4. Upon receipt of the pleadings of the parties, learned Labour Court framed issues, out of which, Issue No.1 is with regard to the fairness of the domestic enquiry held against the Workman. Accordingly, the petitioner-Management filed a petition to decide the Issue No.1 as preliminary issue, which was rejected vide order dated 5.9.2014. Assailing the said order, the petitioner-Management preferred W.P. (C) No.17465 of 2014 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.10.2014 directing learned Labour Court to decide the Issue No.1 as preliminary issue. It was further directed therein that if the finding of the preliminary issue goes against the petitioner-Management, it should be given opportunity to adduce evidence in respect of their merit of the reference. Learned Labour Court took up Issue No.1 as preliminary issue and vide its order dated 07.5.2015 decided it against the Management holding that the domestic enquiry conducted against the Workman was not valid. Learned Labour Court took up Issue No.1 as preliminary issue and vide its order dated 07.5.2015 decided it against the Management holding that the domestic enquiry conducted against the Workman was not valid. Accordingly, learned Labour Court directed the petitioner-Management to produce its witness for recording evidence. Assailing the same, this writ petition has been filed. 5. Learned Counsel for the parties do not dispute the aforesaid factual position. However, Mr. Jena, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Management assails the impugned order under Annexure-6 to be perverse and an outcome of total non-application of judicial mind. Although adequate opportunity was given to the opposite party No.1-Workman to defend his case in course of the domestic enquiry, learned Labour Court most erroneously held that the opposite party No.1-Workman was not given opportunity of hearing. Further, finding of learned Labour Court to the effect that the opposite party No.1-Workman was not supplied with the documents relied upon by the Management to prove the charges against the Workman, is an apparent error on the face of the record. The opposite party No.1-Workman in his written statement has categorically admitted that he was supplied with the documents sought for by him in course of the domestic enquiry. Mr. Jena further relied upon the cases of Chairman, Ganga Jamuna Gramin Bank & others – v – Devi Sahai, reported in 2009 LLR 344 , Management of Sargipalli Mines Project of Hindustan Zink Ltd. –v- Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar & another, reported in 2016 (Supp.-II) OLR 1031 and several other case laws in support of his case. He, therefore, prays to quash the impugned order under Annexure-6 and direct the learned Labour Court for de novo adjudication of the preliminary Issue No.1. 6. Mrs. Kanungo, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.1-Workman, on the other hand, supported the impugned order under Annexure-6 and submitted that learned Labour Court taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties and materials produced, passed a reasoned order holding that the domestic enquiry conducted against the opposite party No.1-Workman was not valid. Therefore, the petitioner-Management was given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his case pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P. (C) No.17465 of 2014 (supra).She further contended that the impugned order has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 3.6.2015 passed in Misc. Therefore, the petitioner-Management was given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his case pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P. (C) No.17465 of 2014 (supra).She further contended that the impugned order has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 3.6.2015 passed in Misc. Case No.9613 of 2015 for which the Workman is immensely prejudiced. The impugned order under Annexure-6 is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, the same needs to interference. 7. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record including the impugned order dated 7.5.2015 (Annexure-6), it appears that learned Labour Court has elaborately dealt with the contentions of learned Counsel for the parties and materials available on record on the basis of which it arrived at the impugned finding answering the preliminary issue against the petitioner-Management. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. Shri P.P. Mundhe, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1900 held in case of dismissal of 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 was 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. In the said case, it is held as follows : “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.” 9. 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.” 9. The constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karnatak State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Lakshmidevamma and another, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2090 , while dealing with the issue of regarding the stage at which the Industrial Adjudicator should give opportunity to the Management to lead evidence, held as follows : “ 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 Shambu Nath Goyal’s case need not be varied, being just and fair. There can be no complaint from the management side for the procedure because this opportunity of leading evidence is being sought by the management only as an alternative plea and 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’s case is just and fair. 18. There is one other reason, why we should accept the procedure laid down by this Court in Sambhu Nath Goyal’s case. It is to be noted that this judgment was delivered on 27th. of September, 1983. It has taken note of almost all the earlier judgments of this Court and has laid down the procedure for exercising the right of leading evidence by the management which we have held is neither oppressive nor contrary to the object and scheme of the Act. of September, 1983. It has taken note of almost all the earlier judgments of this Court and has laid down the procedure for exercising the right of leading evidence by the management which we have held is neither oppressive nor contrary to the object and scheme of the Act. This judgment having held the filed for nearly 18 years, in our opinion, the doctrine of stare decisis require us to approve the said judgment to see that a long standing decision is not unsettled without strong cause.:” (Emphasis supplied) At this stage, we may profitably refer to the relevant portion of the case of Sambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Boroda, AIR 1984 SC 289 , to appreciate the law prevailing in the field. “15. The rights which the employer has in law to adduce additional evidence in a proceeding before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal either under Section 10 or Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act questioning the legality of the order terminating the service must be availed of by the employer by making a proper request at the time when, it files its statement of claim or written statement or makes an application seeking either permission to take certain action or seeking approval of the action taken by it. (Emphasis supplied) 16. We think that the application of the management to seek the permission of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for availing the right to adduce further evidence to substantiate the charge or charges framed against the workman referred to in the above passage in the application which may be filed by the management during the pendency of its application made before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal seeking its permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to take a certain action or grant approval of the action taken by it. The management is made aware of the workman’s contention regarding the defeat in the domestic enquiry by the written statement of defence filed by him in the application filed by the management under Section 33 of the Act. Then, if the management chooses to exercise its right it must make up its mind at the earliest stage and file the application for that purpose without any unreasonable delay. Then, if the management chooses to exercise its right it must make up its mind at the earliest stage and file the application for that purpose without any unreasonable delay. But when the question arises in a reference under Section 10 of the Act after the workman had been punished pursuant 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 defeat 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 and 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 and could 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 in delay which may lead to wrecking the morale of the workman and compel him to surrender which he may not otherwise do.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law, we do not feel it necessary to discuss the case law cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner-Management, as the scope of assailing the orders passed in the preliminary issue as well as the stage at which prayers should be made to lead evidence on the merit of the reference or application under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the I.D. Act), as the case may be, made to the Industrial Adjudicator, have been well settled and holds the field till date. The case laws cited by the petitioner-Management are more or less, in the same line, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case involved therein. 11. When fairness of a domestic enquiry is an issue either in a reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act or in a proceeding under Section 33 thereof, the said issue should first be decided as a preliminary issue. 11. When fairness of a domestic enquiry is an issue either in a reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act or in a proceeding under Section 33 thereof, the said issue should first be decided as a preliminary issue. But, there is no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the case by the Industrial Adjudicator, questioning the legality or, otherwise the correctness of the findings in the preliminary issue, when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after final award/decision. The High Court should refuse to intervene at this stage to avoid undue delay in adjudication of the industrial dispute as it will adversely affect the interest of the Workman. Likewise, permission of the Industrial Adjudicator to adduce further evidence on the merit of the action taken against the Workman by the Management should be sought at the first instance, i.e. at the time of filing of or in the written statement to the reference made under Section 10 of the I.D. Act before the Industrial Adjudicator or while filing an application for approval of or for permission to impose the punishment under Section 33 of the I.D. Act, as the case may be. It will not prejudice the Management in any manner because opportunity of leading evidence is being sought by the Management only as an alternative plea and not as an admission of illegality in the domestic enquiry. The purpose behind such exercise has been elaborately discussed in the aforesaid case laws, which need no reiteration. 12. In view of the settled position of law of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the discussions made above, this Court without delving into the merit of the impugned order under Annexure-6 directs the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar to proceed with the matter by affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order under Annexure-6. This being a dispute of the year, 1995, we are constrained to direct the learned Labour Court to adjudicate the reference as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order, following due procedure of law. Parties are directed to co-operate with the learned Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for early adjudication of the reference. 13. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Petition disposed of.