Page No.# 1/27 GAHC010089542025 2026:GAU-AS:8350 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2422/2025 THE MANAGEMENT OF BETJAN TEA ESTATE MAKUM, PO-MAKUM JUNCTION, DIST- TINSUKIA, PIN- 786170, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. VERSUS SRI KESHAB BORAH AND ANR REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, ASSAM CHAH KARMACHARI SANGHA (ACKS). DOOMDOOMA CIRCLE, P.O- DOOMDOOMA, PIN-786151, DIST.- TINSUKIA, ASSAM. PO- DOOMDOOMA, DIST TINSUKIA 2:THE PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ASSAM AT DIBRUGARH PIN-786001 DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Jahid, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. A. Begum, Advocate Page No.# 2/27 · Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 11.06.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : Yes · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : No JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. A. Jahid, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. A. Begum, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1. 2. The present writ petition was filed assailing the Award dated 20.01.2025 passed in Reference Case No.04/2012 by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal at Dibrugarh, whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal passed an Award opining that the dismissal of the workman, namely Shri Keshab Borah was not justified and directions were issued that the workman be reinstated to his service with full back wages from the date of his dismissal. 3. Before dealing with the facts, this Court finds it very pertinent to observe that when the instant writ petition was taken up by this Court on 22.05.2026, a submission was made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 to the effect that the Respondent No.1 had crossed the age of superannuation. Page No.# 3/27 Today, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that the said submission was made without concurring with the workman and also without taking note of the facts. 4. This Court also finds it relevant to observe that based on the said submission which was made on 22.05.2026, this Court opined that the issue involved in the present proceedings was limited as to whether the Respondent No.1 would be entitled to back wages. However, taking into account the materials on record, as the Respondent No.1 i.e. the workman would attain the age of superannuation only on 28.02.2029, the issue pertaining to reinstatement with back wages is required to be adjudicated. BRIEF FACTS: 5. On 24.10.2007, Shri Keshab Borah, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the workman’) was issued a Show Cause Notice alleging inter alia that the workman with the intention of personal gains entered Haziras (names in master roll) of 22 temporary workmen. The Show Cause Notice further alleged that the workman tried to make payment to those temporary workmen, but was not successful. Allegations were leveled against the workman that on 02.10.2007 at 1:40 PM, the workman created an unruly scene in the Garden Assistant Manager's Office and kicked the permanent worker Shri Page No.# 4/27 Minto Das to vent out his frustration. It was alleged that the workman entered the Deputy Manager's Office at 2:15 PM and wanted to know how and when the unpaid balance of bonus payment would be made and while doing so, the workman had broken a glass pane in the Office of the Head Clerk and shouted unparliamentary words. Further to the said, it was alleged that upon scrutiny of records, it revealed that for the period from 24.03.2007 to 05.10.2007, the workman had authorized payment for a set of temporary workers even though they were not actually working, thus causing loss to the company in terms of financial payment of Rs.88,550/-. 6. The workman, upon receipt of the said Show Cause Notice dated 24.10.2007, replied denying to all allegations made in the said Show Cause Notice. 7. Upon receiving the said reply from the workman, the Manager of the Petitioner Tea Estate being not satisfied, initiated a Domestic Enquiry. 8. The Enquiry Report was submitted on 08.02.2008 holding inter alia that the workman had committed acts of fraud, theft, and dishonesty with the company's business. It was also opined in the Page No.# 5/27 Enquiry Report that the workman had committed the acts of willful disobedience, abuse and threat to the Superior Officer, co-worker and also were guilty of acts of quarreling, fighting and causing disturbance prejudicial to good order and repeated negligence on his work, which amounted to gross misconduct as per the Standing Orders in-force on the Estate. 9. The said Enquiry Report was furnished to the workman vide a communication dated 15.03.2008 and the workman replied on 19.03.2008 categorically stating that the Domestic Enquiry was conducted in a biased manner and the workman was not granted an adequate opportunity to defend himself in a legal manner. It is also mentioned that the workman was deprived of preparing any defence inasmuch as, the list of witness was not furnished to the workman. In addition to that, the workman in the reply also categorically deemed that he assaulted a co-worker and that the workman had submitted an apology letter. 10. In pursuance to the said reply, the Management of the Petitioner Estate, dismissed the workman w.e.f. 24.03.2008. 11. In view of the dismissal, an industrial dispute arose for which the Government of Assam, Labour & Employment Department vide Page No.# 6/27 a notification dated 24.05.2012 referred the dispute for a decision to the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh with the following terms of reference: (i) Whether the Management of Betjan Tea Estate are justified in dismissing the services of Shri Keshab Borah Mohorer of Betjan Tea Estate? (ii) If not, whether the said workman, Shri Keshab Borah is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages or any other relief in lieu thereof? 12. Pursuant to the receipt of the said Reference, a Reference Case was initiated being Reference Case No.04/2012. 13. The records reveal that though notices were issued, only the Management appeared and filed a written statement on 19.03.2013. It is very relevant to take note of that at Paragraph No.21 of the written statement filed by the Management, it was categorically mentioned that the Management intended to rely on the Domestic Enquiry first, and if the learned Court held that the Domestic Enquiry was not in order and violative of the principles of natural justice, the Management intended to lead evidence to prove their case. Page No.# 7/27 14. The records further reveal that the Reference proceedings proceeded ex-parte against the workman as the workman did not put in his appearance. Be that as it may, on behalf of the Management, one witness was examined and discharged vide an order dated 04.05.2013. Subsequent thereto, on 27.05.2013, an ex-parte Award was passed. 15. The workman thereupon challenged the said Award before this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.1686/2014. The learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 15.12.2022 upon a consent, set aside the Award dated 27.05.2013 and remanded back to the learned Tribunal for fresh consideration. Paragraph Nos. 12, 13, and 14 of the said order dated 15.12.2022 passed in WP(C) No.1686/2014 being relevant are reproduced herein under: “12. In the circumstance, we queried to the respondent Management as to whether they would object to the matter being remanded back for a fresh adjudication by giving the workman an adequate hearing. In response, a communication from the Management Betjan Tea Estate made to the learned counsel for the Management is placed on record that the Management would have no objection if the matter is remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal for a fresh decision. A copy of the communication of the Manager Betjan Tea Estate, which is a print out of the message in the electronic form, is kept on record. Page No.# 8/27 13. We appreciate the magnanimity of the Management of the Betjan Tea Estate in agreeing in the aforesaid peculiar circumstance of the case to have the matter remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration by giving a due consideration to the workman to defend himself. 14. In view of the agreement of the Management, the award of the Tribunal dated 27.05.2013 is set aside and remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.” 16. The record further reveals that on 11.04.2023, the written statement was filed on behalf of the workman. It would also be seen from the records that initially, on behalf of the Petitioner, there was no appearance till 21.06.2023, when an application was filed seeking permission to adduce further evidence, including the evidence of the Enquiry Officer, Ms. Arati Sharma. The said application was allowed. The records further reveal that on 01.08.2023, evidence-on-affidavit of 3 (three) more witnesses were filed by the Management. The witnesses thereupon were cross- examined. The records do not show at any point of time after the remand being made by this Court vide an order dated 15.10.2022, the Petitioner side ever asserted that the Petitioner would like the learned Tribunal to first adjudicate on the issue pertaining to the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry. Rather, the Petitioner continued Page No.# 9/27 with adducing evidence on merits. The workman side also adduced various witnesses on merits. 17. It is also very pertinent to mention that on 02.05.2023, the learned Presiding Officer had formulated 3 (three) issues which are reproduced herein under: “1. Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the Management was justifiable and was conducted by following rules of natural justice? 2. Whether the Management of Betjan Tea Estate are justified in dismissing the services of Shri Keshab Borah, Mohorer of Betjan Tea Estate? 3. If not, whether the said workman, Shri Keshab Borah is entitles to reinstatement with full back wages or any other relief in lieu thereof?” 18. The above issues which have been quoted were not objected by the Management at any point of time, rather the Management proceeded with adducing evidence in terms of the said issues which touched on merits. 19. The learned Industrial Tribunal vide the impugned Award dated 20.01.2025 after taking into account the evidence on record, came to a finding that the dismissal of the workman was not justified and as such, directed reinstatement with full back wages. Page No.# 10/27 It is under such circumstances, the present proceedings was filed. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES: 20. Mr. A. Jahid, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the learned Industrial Tribunal had committed a grave error in not deciding the aspect pertaining to the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry first which is the requirement of law in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Vs. Ludh Budh Singh reported in (1972) 1 SCC 595 and in that regard, referred to sub-paragraph No. (3) of Paragraph No.61 of the said judgment. 21. Mr. A. Jahid, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner further submitted that the findings of facts arrived at by the learned Industrial Tribunal are perverse inasmuch as, the evidence which were adduced before the Domestic Enquiry were not taken into consideration and in that regard he has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. Vs. H. Amaresh reported in (2006) 6 SCC 187 and more particularly referred to Paragraph No.20. In addition to that, the learned counsel also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Cholan Roadways Ltd. Vs. G. Page No.# 11/27 Thirugnanasambandam reported in (2005) 3 SCC 241 and submitted that the Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was obligated to keep in mind that the standard of proof required in the Domestic Enquiry vis-à- vis a criminal trial are different. The standard of proof which is required in a Domestic Enquiry or before the Industrial Tribunal was preponderance of probability and not proof beyond all reasonable doubt. 22. Per contra, Ms. A. Begum, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 submitted that the proposition of law stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that it is always necessary for the Tribunal to first decide the validity of the Domestic Enquiry and therefore can proceed on the merits cannot be a universal proposition. It shall depend on the conduct of the parties before the learned Tribunal. Referring to the entire records of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, the learned counsel submitted that the Management never insisted on the adjudication of the question of fairness of the Domestic Enquiry as a preliminary issue. 23. The learned counsel submitted that though such a plea was raised by the Petitioner in its written statement, it was also the Page No.# 12/27 requirement of law that the petitioner should urge the learned Tribunal to frame a preliminary issue. In that regard, the learned counsel referred to Sub-Paragraph Nos. (4), (5) and (6) of Paragraph No.61 of the judgment in the case of Ludh Budh Singh (supra) and further submitted that in the instant case, the issues were framed as on 02.05.2023. The Petitioner herein continued to adduce evidence on merits and never raised the objection. The objection is being sought to be raised only in the instant proceedings. The learned counsel submitted that these objections are being raised now so that the proceedings get so delayed, thereby the workman loses all hope in this industrial dispute adjudication. 24. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 further submitted that the findings of a Domestic Enquiry no doubt has to be duly taken note of by the Industrial Tribunal. But if the Domestic Enquiry is biased and the findings are perverse, which is not supported by the witnesses of the Management, it is always open to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Courts to substitute such findings of facts. The learned counsel further submitted that in the instant case, it would be seen that in the impugned Award dated 20.01.2025, the learned Industrial Tribunal had duly taken note of each and every evidence and had precisely, applying the Page No.# 13/27 law, come to a finding that the charges of misappropriation as well as insubordination and assault could not be proved. The allegation which was made of misappropriation could not have sustained taking into account that it is the very admission on the part of the Management Witness No.1 and Management Witness No.3 that the money was never disbursed by their Management. 25. The learned counsel further submitted that in the allegations which were made that the workman had tried to make payment to some of these temporary workmen, was also falsified by the evidence of the Workman Witness Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and the Management refused to cross-examine these witnesses before the learned Industrial Tribunal. 26. The learned counsel further submitted that the charge of assault against one Shri Minto Das was absolutely false as would be apparent from the evidence of Shri Minto Das who was the Workman Witness No.6. The Management however did not cross- examine him. 27. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 further submitted that Management Witness No.4 who was the person on whose basis charges were leveled against the Petitioner, that the Page No.# 14/27 petitioner was involved in an act of insubordination also could not be proved, inasmuch as he during the cross-examination categorically mentioned that he did not recognize who was the person. 28. It is under such circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the findings of facts which were arrived at by the learned Industrial Tribunal calls for no interference in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, inasmuch as there is no perversity. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 29. In the previous segments of the instant judgment, this Court had duly taken note of the manner in which the proceedings before the learned Industrial Tribunal were conducted. As stated above, on account of the workman being absent, an ex-parte Award was passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal on 27.05.2013 and thereupon, the same was remanded back vide an order passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court on 15.12.2022 in WP(C) No.1686/2014 and the relevant paragraphs have already been quoted hereinabove. 30. The records further reveal that on 11.04.2023, the workman filed his written statement. No reply thereagainst was filed by the Page No.# 15/27 Management. On 02.05.2023, 3 (three) issues were framed which have been already quoted herein above. The Management side thereupon appeared on only on 21.06.2023 and prayed that they would like to adduce further witnesses. In the entire order sheet as well as the various applications filed by the Management, there is nothing on record to show that the Management at any point of time requested the learned Industrial Tribunal to first adjudicate the Domestic Enquiry and then to proceed with the adjudication on merits. 31. In this regard, this Court now finds it relevant to take note of sub-paragraph Nos. (1) to (4) of Paragraph No.61 of the judgment in the case of Ludh Budh Singh (supra) which is reproduced herein under: “61. From the above decisions the following principles broadly emerge — “(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 straightway 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 Page No.# 16/27 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. 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, 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 Page No.# 17/27 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. 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.” 32. The observations of the Supreme Court in the above quoted paragraph No. 61 of the judgment in the case of Ludh Budh Singh (supra) makes it clear that the Management can rely upon the Domestic Enquiry in the first instance and alternatively without prejudice to the said plea, simultaneously adduce additional evidence justifying its actions. It is also stipulated that when the Management relies upon the enquiry conducted and also Page No.# 18/27 simultaneously adduces evidence before the Tribunal, it is the duty of the learned Tribunal to first adjudicate on the legality and validity of the Domestic Enquiry and in the circumstance, the learned Tribunal holds the Domestic Enquiry to be valid, there is no requirement of considering the evidence adduced before it on merits. However, if the learned Tribunal holds the Domestic Enquiry to be not proper/valid, the learned Tribunal derives jurisdiction to decide on the merits and thereupon look into the evidence adduced by the Management in support of the action taken against the workman. It is also relevant to mention that the Supreme Court at paragraph No. 61(4) of the judgment makes it clear, that the management has to request the learned Tribunal to frame a preliminary issue. The Supreme Court also observed that it was open to the learned Tribunal to deal with the question of validity of the Domestic Enquiry report at the first instance. 33. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kurukshetra University Vs. Prithvi Singh reported in (2018) 4 SCC 483 wherein the Supreme Court dealt with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ludh Budh Singh (supra) and observed that it was mandatory for the learned Tribunal to frame the preliminary issue. Paragraph Nos. 17, 18, 19 & 20 being relevant are reproduced Page No.# 19/27 herein under: “17. When we examine the facts of this case in the light of the aforementioned principles of law, we find that the termination of the respondent was by way of punishment because it was based on the adverse findings recorded against the respondent in the domestic enquiry. So the question, which the Labour Court was expected to decide in the first instance as a “preliminary issue”, was whether the domestic enquiry held by the appellant employer was legal and proper. In other words, the question to be decided by the Labour Court was whether the domestic enquiry held by the appellant was conducted following the principles of natural justice or not. If the domestic enquiry was held legal and proper then the next question which arose for consideration was whether the punishment imposed on the respondent delinquent employee was proportionate to the gravity of the charge levelled against him or it called for any interference to award any lesser punishment by exercising the powers under Section 11-A of the ID Act. 18. If the domestic inquiry was held illegal and improper then the next question, which arose for consideration, was whether to allow the appellant employer to prove the misconduct/charge before the Labour Court on merits by adducing independent evidence against the respondent employee. The appellant was entitled to do so after praying for an opportunity to allow them to lead evidence and pleading the misconduct in the written statement. (See also para 33 at pp. 1665-66 of Shankar case.) 19. Once the appellant employer was able to prove the misconduct/charge before the Labour Court, then it was for the Labour Court to decide as to whether the termination should be upheld or interfered by exercising the powers under Section 11-A of the ID Act by awarding lesser punishment provided a case to that effect on facts is made out by the respondent employee. Page No.# 20/27 20. We are constrained to observe that first, the Labour Court committed an error in not framing a “preliminary issue” for deciding the legality of domestic enquiry and second, having found fault in the domestic inquiry committed another error when it did not allow the appellant to lead independent evidence to prove the misconduct/charge on merits and straightaway proceeded to hold that it was a case of illegal retrenchment and hence the respondent’s termination is bad in law.” 34. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of an important proposition of law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Lakshmidevamma (Smt) & Another reported in (2001) 5 SCC 433. The reference made to the Constitution Bench was on the question of law as to whether the Management can be permitted to adduce evidence on merits if such a plea is not taken in the written statement when the Domestic enquiry is relied upon by the Management. The Constitution Bench answered in the negative holding inter alia that it would not be permissible to permit the Management to adduce evidence if such a plea was not taken. However, it is interesting to note the reason. The reason was explained by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court at paragraph No. 17 of the said judgment i.e. to eliminate the likely delay in permitting the Management to make belated application whereby the proceedings before the learned Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal could get prolonged. Paragraph No. 17 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein under: Page No.# 21/27 “17. 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 Shambhu Nath Goyal case need not be varied, being just and fair. There can be no complaint from the management side for this 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 case is just and fair.” 35. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal Vs. Bank of Baroda & Others reported in (1983) 4 SCC 491 which was approved by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmidevamma (supra) wherein the reason assigned for not permitting the Management to adduce evidence if such plea was not entered in the written statement was on the ground that the delay in disposal of the reference proceedings may lead to wrecking the morale of the workman and compel him to surrender which he may not otherwise do. Paragraph No. 16 of the said judgment of Shambhu Nath Goyal (supra) being relevant is reproduced herein under: Page No.# 22/27 “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.” 36. The above analysis therefore shows that it is the requirement of law that the Management has to take a plea in the written statement that it would rely upon the Domestic Enquiry as well as Page No.# 23/27 also take a plea without prejudice to the plea of the Domestic Enquiry to adduce evidence on merit. The reasons assigned for not allowing the plea of adducing evidence at a later stage after deciding the issue of validity of the Domestic Enquiry, is very relevant, in the opinion of this Court, inasmuch as delay in disposal of the Reference proceedings would wreck the morale of the workman and compel him to surrender to the mighty Management. It is in this perspective, this Court is of the opinion that merely taking a plea in the written statement and not drawing the attention of the learned Tribunal in the entire proceedings that a plea is taken as regards the validity of the Domestic Enquiry be decided as a preliminary enquiry, cannot be countenanced. It is the duty of the Management to bring it to the notice of the learned Tribunal by filing an application or by submitting draft issues that the plea of validity of the Domestic Enquiry be decided as a preliminary issue. Failure to do so, it is also the opinion of this Court that such plea cannot be raised at a later stage after the Award is passed. The request to be made to the learned Tribunal to frame a preliminary issue on the validity of the Domestic Enquiry is also apparent from paragraph No. 61(4) of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ludh Budh Singh (supra). 37. In the instant case, it would be seen from the facts delineated Page No.# 24/27 above that the workman was dismissed from service on 24.03.2008. The Petitioner took the plea of relying upon the Domestic Enquiry and to adduce evidence on merits if the learned Tribunal decided against the Domestic Enquiry. However, the records of the entire proceedings would show that not only the Petitioner did not request the learned Tribunal to adjudicate the validity of the Domestic Enquiry as a preliminary issue but adduced evidence on merit thereby going against the plea taken at paragraph No. 21 of the written statement. The Petitioner further knew that three issues were framed and then also did not make any request that the validity of the Domestic Enquiry which was Issue No. 1 should be decided as a preliminary issue. 38. In that view of the matter, this Court cannot permit the Petitioner to raise that objection to the impugned Award for not framing the preliminary issue, in the present proceedings. 39. Let this Court now take note of the merits. In the previous segments of the instant judgment, this Court has duly taken note of what were the three issues which were framed on 02.05.2023. Issue No.1 specifically dealt with as to whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the Management was justifiable and was conducted by following the rules of natural justice. However, a Page No.# 25/27 perusal of the entire impugned Award shows that there is not a single whisper as regards the Issue No. 1 which pertains to the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry. The impugned Award shows that the learned Industrial Tribunal decided the other 2 issues. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned Award dated 20.01.2025 cannot be sustained in law without a decision in respect to the Issue No.1 inasmuch as without a decision in respect of Issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal could not have decided the Issue Nos. 2 and 3. 40. Accordingly, this Court has to set aside the impugned Award dated 20.01.2025 inasmuch as, when the Domestic Enquiry is being relied upon and an issue had been framed and no decision is rendered as regards the validity of the Domestic Enquiry, the said impugned Award cannot be sustained in law. CONCLUSIONS: 41. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The impugned Award dated 20.01.2025 passed in Reference Case No.04/2012 by the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh is set aside and quashed. Page No.# 26/27 (ii) The learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh is directed to decide afresh the said reference proceedings. (iii) Taking into account that the Petitioner now has urged that the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry is required to be first decided, this Court directs the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh to first decide Issue No.1. (iv) Based upon the decision of Issue No.1, the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh shall thereupon decide the Issue Nos. 2 and 3. (v) It has been submitted at the bar that both the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.1 that they would not be adducing any further evidence and as such, on the basis of the evidence which are already available on record, the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh shall do the needful as directed above. (vi) Taking into account that the Respondent No.1 was dismissed from service in the year 2008, the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh shall decide the said dispute within a period of 6 (six) months from the Page No.# 27/27 date of appearance of both the parties before the learned Tribunal. (vii) As both the parties are duly present before this Court, they are directed to appear before the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh on 13.07.2026. (viii) The Registry is directed to intimate the learned Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh about the present judgment. (ix) Return the TCR forthwith and if necessary, the Registry shall employ the services of the Special Messenger so that the records are available before the learned Tribunal on the date fixed hereinabove for appearance of the parties. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Satyam Sharma Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma Date: 2026.06.19 19:18:45 +05'30'