THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.4300 of 2002 ORDER: The 2nd respondent was appointed as a Typist by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, on 31.12.1973. Thereafter, he earned promotions, and by 1986, he was promoted as Higher Grade Assistant. Charge sheet was issued to the 2nd respondent, alleging that he has misrepresented the facts, in relation to a policy taken in the name of his mother. It was stated that the father of the 2nd respondent, who figured as a nominee in the policy taken in the name of his mother, laid a claim stating that she died. The 2nd respondent is said to have corroborated the claim. The 2nd respondent submitted his explanation. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges against the 2nd respondent are proved. Taking the same into account, the disciplinary authority passed an order, dated 19.12.1995, directing the removal of the 2nd respondent from service. Appeal preferred by him was dismissed on 04.10.1996. The 2nd respondent filed L.C.I.D.No.11 of 2001 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, aggrieved by the order of removal. The petitioners raised objections by filing counter. According to them, the I.D. is not maintainable against the Corporation and that the further departmental remedy was not availed by the 2nd respondent. One of the contentions advanced by the 2nd respondent was that the domestic enquiry was not properly conducted. The Tribunal took up that question and heard both the parties. Through order, dated 12.12.2001, the Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry was not validly conducted. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. Heard Sri M.V.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The writ petition is filed against an order, which is preliminary in nature. It touches only the validity of the domestic enquiry. The Tribunal is conferred with the power to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry. If the enquiry is held to be invalid, the party shall be given opportunity to lead evidence, touching the charges framed against him. The Tribunal made a reference to the observation made by the Enquiry Officer himself to the effect that the 2nd respondent was entitled to be given fresh opportunity to cross-examine some witnesses. It means that the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses was not given by the Enquiry Officer, on earlier occasion. The record discloses that the further cross-examination was not done. Though it was alleged that the 2nd respondent did not avail the opportunity, the Tribunal took the view that on account of failure to cross-examine the witnesses, the enquiry is vitiated. It relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in SUR ENAMEL AND STAMPING WORLD V. WORKMEN[1]. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. The grievance of the petitioners that the plea as to maintainability of the I.D. and the non-exhaustion of alternative remedy needs to be considered at the hearing of the I.D. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, upholding the impugned order and leaving it open to the petitioner to urge all the grounds, touching the maintainability etc., as and when the I.D. is decided on merits. The Labour Court shall give opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence before it and shall not relegate the matter to the Enquiry Officer. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.19.01.2011. GJ [1] AIR 1963 SC 1914