M.K. Chawla, J.

1. Shri Jai Narain Bansal was working as Terminal Tax Inspector at T.T. Post, Mathura Road, in November, 1976. He was found guilty of some misconduct and a domestic inquiry to substantiate the charge was instituted. The charge was proved and consequently the penalty of removal from service, not amounting to disqualification for future employment was imposed against him. Against this order, he raised an industrial dispute in which he challenged the vires of the holding of the domestic inquiry. The matter was ultimately referred to the Court of Shri A.K. Garg, Presiding Officer, Labour Court with the following terms of reference:

"Whether the termination of the services of Shri Jai Narain Bansal is legal and justified and, if not, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this matter."

2. After going through the pleadings and also the record of the inquiry proceedings, the Presiding Officer set aside the findings of the domestic inquiry by holding that the dismissal of Shri Bansal was neither in conformity with the principles of natural justice nor consistent with the instructions issued by the Government of India. The concluding part of the order reads as under:

"In view of the above discussion I conclude that the inquiry which led to the dismissal of Sh. Jai Narain Bansal was neither in conformity with the principles of natural justice nor consistent with the instruction issued by the Govt. of India. Therefore, the report of the Inquiry Officer could not have formed the basis of dismissal of Sh. Bansal. The management has, however, stated in the W.S. that in the event of the Inquiry being found defective, it may be given an opportunity to prove the allegations against the workman. Therefore, I will invite management to prove misconduct by leading evidence in this Court.

Put up on 4.2.88 for evidence of management. Dt. 1.12.87."

3. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has challenged the vires of the impugned order of the Labour Court dated 1.12.87 by way of filing the present writ petition seeking the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records of L.C.I.D. 27/84 and to quash/set aside the said order, on numerous grounds.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent Shri Jai Narain Bansal at the outset has raised the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition inasmuch as no final order as sought to be made out in the petition has been passed by the Presiding Officer, The case is yet at a preliminary stage. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an interlocutory order is not maintainable and is premature.

5. In support of this submission, learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a Judgment reported as The Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P. Mundhe, AIR 1975 SC 1900 [LQ/SC/1975/290] . The relevant observations of the Supreme Court on this aspect are reproduced below:

"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 inquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic inquiry or defective inquiry 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, it will not thereafter be permissible in any proceedings 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."

6. The observations of the Supreme Court fairly and squarely apply to the facts and the findings of the present case. Even though the inquiry proceedings have been set aside being not in conformity with the principles of natural justice, but the petitioner/management has been given another opportunity to prove the alleged misconduct by leading evidence before the Labour Court. The impugned order, thus, is an interlocutory order against which writ is not maintainable. After the parties are allowed to lead evidence, the final order will be passed by the Labour Court.

7. In the result, there is no force in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.