JUDGMENT : KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.M. Haloi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the Order dated 04.07.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh, whereby, the domestic enquiry held by the management against the delinquient workmen has been held not to be proper. 3. The facts of the petitioner’s case is as follows: Four nos. of workers i.e. Sri Nirendra Barman, Shri Naba Gogoi, Shri Sanjib Moran and Shri Jintu Tamuli of the petitioner’s Company were dismissed by the management after holding a domestic enquiry. Thereafter, upon dispute being raised by the Union against the said dismissal orders passed by the management, conciliation proceedings were held and the same being failed, the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh for adjudicating the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after referred as ‘the Act of 1947’) which is hereunder: 1. Whether the management of the Hindustan Unilever Limited (P.P.F) are justified in dismissing the services of Sri Nirendra Barman, Shri Naba Gogoi, Shri Sanjib Moran and Shri Jintu Tamuli, i.e., the respondent No. 4 to 7 from the Company w.e.f. 06.09.2010? 2. If not, whether the four workmen are entitled to reinstatement with full back wages? 3. If not, what other relief the workmen are entitled to? 4. Thereafter, both the management and the workmen side submitted their pleadings before the Industrial Tribunal. Further, the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal praying for trying the validity of domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue before going into the merits of the case. 5. The Industrial Tribunal accordingly, framed a preliminary issue which reads as “whether the domestic enquiry held against the four workmen is valid and lawful?” 6. Accordingly, the said issue was taken up for hearing, whereafter, the learned Tribunal after hearing the parties hold that the enquiry held by the management is not proper and accordingly, allowed both the parties to adduce further evidence if they desire in order to decide the reference on merit. The said order of the learned Tribunal is under challenge before this Court. 7. Mr. B. Dutta, learned Senior counsel submits that the order of the Tribunal is absolutely erroneous. The said order of the learned Tribunal is under challenge before this Court. 7. Mr. B. Dutta, learned Senior counsel submits that the order of the Tribunal is absolutely erroneous. He further submits that the enquiry was held properly after giving due opportunity to the workmen. He further submits that the order of the Tribunal holding the enquiry to be improper is erroneous in law. In support of his submission, he relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court: 1. Sur Enamel and Staming Works Limited Vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1914 2. State of U.P. Vs. Harendra Arora and Another, (2001) 6 SCC 392 3. Union of India Vs. Alok Kumar, (2010) 5 SCC 349 4. Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited Vs. Ram Naresh Tripathi, (1993) 2 SCC 115 5. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Maharastra General Kamgar Union and Others, (1999) 1 SCC 626 6. D.G. Railway Protection Force and Others Vs. K. Raghuram Babu, (2008) 4 SCC 406 7. Cholan Roadways Limited Vs. G. Thirugynanasambandam, (2005) 3 SCC 241 8. State Bank of India Vs. Bidhyut Kumar Mitra, (2011) 2 SCC 316 9. Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. Union of india and Others, (2011) 14 SCC 692 10. M.L. Singhal Vs. Punjab National Bank and Another, (2018) 18 SCC 21 11. Standard Chartered Bank Vs. R.C. Srivastava, (2021) 19 SCC 281 8. Mr. K.M. Haloi, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal deciding the preliminary issue against the management as regards the validity of the domestic enquiry which can be otherwise assailed by the petitioner’s Company, if ultimately the award is passed in favour of the Union. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the following decisions: 1. The Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe, (1975) 2 SCC 661 2. Pertabhghur Tea Estate Vs. Hiren Bhumij and Another, 2015 SCC Online Gwt 349 9. I have heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record including the decisions cited at the bar. 10. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe, (1975) 2 SCC 661 2. Pertabhghur Tea Estate Vs. Hiren Bhumij and Another, 2015 SCC Online Gwt 349 9. I have heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record including the decisions cited at the bar. 10. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Vs. Ludh Budh Singh, (1972) 1 SCC 595 , the Apex Court has held that where no enquiry was conducted by an employer or the enquiry itself was found to be defective, the employer shall have to be given a chance to adduce evidence before the Tribunal for justifying his action provided the employer asks for the permission of the Tribunal to adduce fresh evidence to justify its action. Further, the following principles were laid down by the Apex Court: “(1) If no domestic enquiry had been held by the management, or if the management makes it clear that it does not rely upon any domestic enquiry that may have been held by it, it is entitled to straightaway adduce evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action. The Tribunal is bound to consider that evidence so adduced before it, on merits, and give a decision thereon. In such a case, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the validity of the domestic enquiry as the employer himself does not rely on it. (2) If a domestic enquiry had been held, it is open to the management to rely upon the domestic enquiry held by it, in the first instance, and alternatively and without prejudice to its plea that the enquiry is proper and binding, simultaneously adduce additional evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action. In such a case no inference can be drawn, without anything more that the management has given up the enquiry conducted by it. (3) When the management relies on the enquiry conducted by it, and also simultaneously adduces evidence before the Tribunal, without prejudice to its plea that the enquiry proceedings are proper, it is the duty of the Tribunal, in the first instance, to consider whether the enquiry proceedings conducted by the management are valid and proper. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the enquiry proceedings have been held properly and are valid, the question of considering the evidence adduced before it on merits, no longer survives. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the enquiry proceedings have been held properly and are valid, the question of considering the evidence adduced before it on merits, no longer survives. It is only when the Tribunal holds that the enquiry proceedings have not been properly held, that it derives jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the dispute and in such a case it has to consider the evidence adduced before it by the management and decide the matter on the basis of such evidence. (4) When a domestic enquiry has been held by the management and the management relies on the same, it is open to the latter to request the Tribunal to try the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue and also ask for an opportunity to adduce evidence before the Tribunal, if the finding on the preliminary issue is against the management. However elaborate and cumbersome the procedure may be under such circumstances, it is open to the Tribunal to deal with, in the first instance, as a preliminary issue, the validity of the domestic enquiry. If its finding on the preliminary issue is in favour of the management, then no additional evidence need be cited by the management. But if the finding on the preliminary issue is against the management, the Tribunal will have to give the employer an opportunity to cite additional evidence and also give a similar opportunity to the employee to lead evidence contra, as the request to adduce evidence had been made by the management to the Tribunal during the course of the proceedings and before the trial has come to an end. When the preliminary issue is decided against the management and the latter leads evidence before the Tribunal, the position, under such circumstances, will be that the management is deprived of the benefit of having the finding of the domestic tribunal being accepted as prima facie proof of the alleged misconduct. On the other hand, the management will have to prove, by adducing proper evidence, that the workman' is guilty of misconduct and that the action taken by it is proper. On the other hand, the management will have to prove, by adducing proper evidence, that the workman' is guilty of misconduct and that the action taken by it is proper. It will not be just and fair either to the management or to the workman that the Tribunal should refuse to take evidence and thereby ask the management to make a further application, after holding a proper enquiry, and deprive the workman of the benefit of the Tribunal itself being satisfied, on evidence adduced before it, that he was or was not guilty of the alleged misconduct. (5) The management has got a right to attempt to sustain its order by adducing independent evidence before the Tribunal. But the management should avail itself of the said opportunity by making a suitable request to the Tribunal before the proceedings are closed. If no such opportunity has been availed of or asked for by the management before the proceedings are closed, the employer can make no grievance that the Tribunal did not provide such an opportunity. The Tribunal will have before it only the enquiry proceedings and it has to decide whether the proceedings have been held properly and the findings recorded therein are also proper. (6) If the employer relies only on the domestic enquiry and does not simultaneously lead additional evidence or ask for an opportunity during the pendency of the proceedings to adduce such evidence, the duty of the Tribunal is only to consider the validity of the domestic enquiry as well as the finding recorded therein and decide the matter. If the Tribunal decides that the domestic enquiry has not been held properly, it is not its function to invite suo motu the employer to adduce evidence before it to justify the action taken by it. (7) The above principles apply to the proceedings before the Tribunal, which have come before it either on a reference under Section 10 or by way of an application under Section 33 of the Act.” 11. These principles were adopted in Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Vs. Firestore Tire and Rubber Company, (1973) 1 SCC 813 which was decided after the introduction of Section 11-A in the said Act of 1947. 12. In Neeta Kaplish Vs. These principles were adopted in Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Vs. Firestore Tire and Rubber Company, (1973) 1 SCC 813 which was decided after the introduction of Section 11-A in the said Act of 1947. 12. In Neeta Kaplish Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another, (1999) 1 SCC 517 , the Apex Court further reiterated the above stated principles and has held that in all cases where enquiry has not been held or the enquiry has been found to be defective, Labour Court/ Tribunal can call upon the management or the employer to justify action taken against the workman provided such request has been made, and to show by fresh evidence that the dismissal order was proper. If management does not lead any evidence by availing of this opportunity, it cannot raise any grouse at any subsequent stage that it should have been given opportunity, as the Tribunal, in those circumstances, would be justified in passing an award in favour of the workman. If, however, opportunity is availed of and evidence is adduced by the management, validity of action taken by it has to be scrutinized and adjudicated on the basis of such fresh evidence. 13. Therefore, where the issue of dismissal of a workman is under reference before the Industrial Tribunal, the management has a right to either rely upon the enquiry which it has held or to lead evidence before the Industrial Tribunal afresh. If the management chose to rely upon the enquiry so held, the Industrial Tribunal shall try first the validity of the enquiry as a preliminary issue. In such hearing, if the domestic enquiry is held to be valid and proper, the matter comes to rest. However, if the finding of the Industrial Tribunal is that the enquiry so held is not valid and proper, the management in that case is entitled to get the opportunity to lead evidence afresh. In other words, the management shall get the opportunity to sustain its order of dismissal by adducing independent/fresh evidence before the Industrial Tribunal. Similarly the workman shall also get the opportunity to overrule such orders of the management. 14. Pertinent, that unless and until, request to adduce fresh evidence is sought at the pleading stage, the same cannot be granted by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal on its own. 15. Similarly the workman shall also get the opportunity to overrule such orders of the management. 14. Pertinent, that unless and until, request to adduce fresh evidence is sought at the pleading stage, the same cannot be granted by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal on its own. 15. Reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda, (1983) 4 SCC 491 . Paragraph 16 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “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 is 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 defect 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. 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 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 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.” 16. Pertinent also that such right of the management to lead evidence though is not a statutory right, the Apex Court has laid down the said procedure to avoid inevitable delay and multiplicity of proceedings in the disposal of disputes between management and the workman. 17. In the case in hand, it appears that the validity of the domestic enquiry was adjudicated as a preliminary issue and upon adjudication, the Industrial Tribunal has come to a finding that the enquiry held by the management is not proper. 18. It appears that after adjudicating the said issue against the management, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh was pleased to give chance to both the parties to adduce fresh evidence, if they desire, in order to decide the reference on merit. However, since the very said order of the Industrial Tribunal was put to challenge in this writ petition by the management and stay orders have been obtained from this Court, further proceedings of the reference were stalled for almost 7(seven) years. 19. This Court at the initial stage, before going into the merit of the matter, is confining itself to the question of maintainability of the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal deciding the preliminary issue with regard to the validity of the domestic enquiry, pending adjudication of the reference. 20. The Act of 1947 was enacted to make provision for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes and to secure industrial peace and harmony by providing mechanisms and procedures for the investigation and settlement of industrial dispute by conciliation, arbitration and adjudication which is provided under the statute. 21. In furtherance of the said object, the Apex Court had laid down the principles pertaining to the issue of dismissal, wherein the validity of domestic enquiry can be tried as a preliminary issue by the Industrial Tribunal. However, if such preliminary award is put to challenge, the entire reference/finaladjudication will come to a halt. The final-adjudication will be delayed. Consequently the finality of such reference will also be delayed. However, if such preliminary award is put to challenge, the entire reference/finaladjudication will come to a halt. The final-adjudication will be delayed. Consequently the finality of such reference will also be delayed. Time is of essence in such references/ adjudication made under the said Act. Therefore, such delay will frustrate the very object of the Act of 1947 as well as the procedure laid down by the Apex Court in this regard. Since the management has a right to sustain its orders by adducing independent fresh evidence even after the enquiry held by the management is found to be not proper by the Industrial Tribunal, the management if cannot succeed in such reference after adducing fresh evidence, the entire award can be put to challenge. “Writ” under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a discretionary and equitable remedy and the same cannot in the opinion of this Court be issued to frustrate the object of a statute. Therefore, however worthy grounds may be available to the management for challenging the preliminary award, since the same can be challenged along with the final award, a writ petition against such order deciding the preliminary issue of validity of the domestic enquiry may not be entertainable. 22. Reference is made to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of The Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe, (1975) 2 SCC 661 . Paragraph 22 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced here under for ready reference: “22. 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. 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.” 23. Pertinent to also refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Pertabghur Tea Estate Vs. Hiren Bhumij and Another, (2016) 1 GLR 312, wherein this Court by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of The Cooper Engineering Limited (supra), declined to interfere with the decision of the Labour Court on the preliminary issue of validity of the domestic enquiry pending adjudication of the reference. Paragraph 25, 26 and 27 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “25. The Apex Court observed that the right of the management to lead evidence before the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal in justification of its decision under consideration by such Tribunal or Court is not a statutory right, but is actually a procedure laid down by the Supreme Court to avoid delay and multiplicity of proceedings in the disposal of disputes between the management and the workman. 26. At this stage, the decision in Cooper Engineering Ltd. (supra) may once again be adverted to. In the said decision, the Apex Court made it abundantly clear that there would 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. The Apex Court further clarified that it would also be legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. 27. There are weighty reasons behind the aforesaid clarification of the Apex Court. The Apex Court further clarified that it would also be legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. 27. There are weighty reasons behind the aforesaid clarification of the Apex Court. Provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are intended for resolution of industrial disputes in a fair, peaceful and judicious manner so that industrial peace is maintained and industrial production is not hampered. Therefore, there should not be any undue delay in adjudication of industrial disputes. Interference with the decision of the Labour Court on the preliminary issue of validity of the domestic enquiry when the management had exercised its right of leading fresh evidence (at the first available opportunity) in the event of the preliminary issue being decided against it may not be justified. In the circumstances of the case, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Labour Court giving liberty to the management to adduce evidence to justify its action of dismissal of the workman after deciding the preliminary issue regarding validity of the domestic inquiry leading to dismissal of the workman against the management.” 24. The grounds urged by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to contend before this Court that the order of the Industrial Tribunal is erroneous in law is not gone into at this stage. However, worthy the aforesaid grounds may be, the same can be taken at the time of challenging the final award, if required. 25. Pertinent, that the management in the instant case at the time of filing their written statement/statement of facts on 28.07.2015, relied upon the domestic enquiry held by them and further crave leave to add and or alter and submit additional statement or rejoinder or amend the statement made and also filed an application before the Industrial Tribunal on the same date of filing of the written statement/statement of facts i.e 28.07.2015, praying, the Industrial Tribunal to try the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue before deciding the merits of the case as per the settled position of law in this regard. 26. Accordingly, the same was decided as a preliminary issue by the Industrial Tribunal and after having held the enquiry not proper, opportunity was granted to both parties to adduce fresh evidence, if they desire. 26. Accordingly, the same was decided as a preliminary issue by the Industrial Tribunal and after having held the enquiry not proper, opportunity was granted to both parties to adduce fresh evidence, if they desire. Thus the said order of the Industrial Tribunal is in conformity of the aforementioned procedure laid down by the Apex Court. Therefore, the entire issue is at large before the Industrial Tribunal, wherein the petitioner can participate and adduce evidence afresh to sustain the subject dismissal orders. 27. In the light of above, particularly the clarification in Cooper Engineering Limited (Supra), this Court is not inclined to invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage with regard to the decision of the Industrial Tribunal on the preliminary issue when the reference is yet to be finally adjudicated. 28. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. 29. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No cost.