ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against an order passed by the Labour Court, Meerut, on 22-6-1968, rejecting the petitioner's application for production of additional evidence. 2. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of paper. It had employed Chandu Ram, respondent No. 2, as a Moulder Mazdoor in its factory. On certain allegations of misconduct, the management of the petitioner Company served a charge-sheet on respondent No. 2 on 11th February, 1966. The Assistant Labour Officer held a domestic enquiry into the charges and submitted a report on 20th June, 1966, that the charges were established. Consequently, respondent No. 2 was dismissed by an order passed on 2nd July,1966. In due course, the dispute whether the dismissal of respondent No. 2 was justified, was referred, by the State Government for adjudication under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 3. Before the Labour Court, the parties filed their pleadings, issues were framed and evidence was adduced. Arguments were heard on 8t'h June, 1966, and then the case was adjourned to 15th June, 1966. On that date, the arguments appear to have concluded, except that the employer wanted to show some authorities on certain points involved in the arguments. 22nd June, 1968, was fixed for further hearing. On that date, the petitioner Company moved an application, stating that it was argued on behalf of the workman that the charge-sheet was vague inasmuch as the particulars of indiscipline were not given ana, though the case of the management is that the charge-sheet was valid and a fair and proper enquiry was conducted, yet, if the court holds otherwise, the management is prepared to produce all the evidence in the court. In paragraph 9 of that application, it was stated that after it has been finally held by the court that the enquiry was unfair and principles of natural justice were violated, an opportunity should be given to the management to supply the particulars of the charges to the workmen in the Court, and the management should be allowed an opportunity to produce all its evidence before the court in respect of the charges. The application ended with the statement that the management had such a right and reserved it in case the court held that the enquiry was unfair for want of particulars or otherwise. 4. This application was rejected by the Labour Court. It held that initially the management had pleaded that the enquiry was fair and proper, and in case it was held otherwise, the workman should not be reinstated but compensation should be awarded to him. This indicated that the employer had no intention to lead evidence in support of the charges. It then observed that the argument on behalf of the workman was that the charge-sheet itself was defective and hence the production of evidence in its support would serve no useful purpose. 5. This order has been challenged on the ground that the Labour Court misapprehended the true legal position. It was urged that the management was entitled to take up the position that the domestic enquiry held by it was proper and binding. In law, the employer is entitled to satisfy the industrial Court, in case it is held that the enquiry was not proper or binding, that the action of dismissal was justified on facts. In other words, the employer is entitled to prove by evidence that the workman was guilty of misconduct. Mr. Khare, appearing for the petitioner, relied upon certain observations of Gajendragadkar J in Ritz Theatres (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, A.I.R. 1963 SC 295. There in paragraph 12, it was observed that the mere fact that the employer seeks an opportunity to lead additional evidence to establish the charges before the Labour Court, does not mean that the employer gives up its case that the domestic enquiry was fair and binding. The tribunal gains jurisdiction to enter into the merits of the charges only if it finds that the domestic enquiry is not binding. The management can take the plea that the enquiry was fair, but, in the alternative, the charges can also be established by evidence. Gajendragadkar, J., then observed: ".... The employer would be precluded from justifying the dismissal of his employee by leading evidence unless he takes the risk of inviting the tribunal to deal with the merits for itself, because as soon as he asks for permission to lead additional evidence, it would follow that he gives up his stand based on the holding of the domestic enquiry. The employer would be precluded from justifying the dismissal of his employee by leading evidence unless he takes the risk of inviting the tribunal to deal with the merits for itself, because as soon as he asks for permission to lead additional evidence, it would follow that he gives up his stand based on the holding of the domestic enquiry. Otherwise, it may have to be held that in all such cases no evidence should be led on the merits unless the issue about the enquiry is tried as a preliminary issue. If the finding on that preliminary issue is in favour of the employer, then, no additional evidence need be cited by the employer; if the finding on the said issue is against him, permission will have to be given to the employer to cite additional evidence. Instead of following such an elaborate and cumbersome procedure, if the employer seeks to lead evidence in addition to the evidence adduced at the departmental enquiry and the employees are also given an opportunity to lead additional evidence, it would be open to the Tribunal first to consider the preliminary issue and then to proceed to deal with the merits, in case the preliminary issue is decided against the employer. That, in our opinion, is the true and correct legal position in this matter." Further, in paragraph 13, it was observed that the mere fact that no enquiry has been held or that the enquiry has not been properly conducted cannot absolve the Tribunal of its duty to decide whether the case that the workman has been guilty of the alleged misconduct, has been made out. The proper way for performing this duty, where there has not been a proper enquiry by the management, is for the Tribunal to take evidence of both sides in respect of the alleged misconduct. It was then observed that the failure to hold the enquiry would not necessarily be fatal to the employer's case and it would be open to him to justify the dismissal by citing evidence before the Tribunal in support of his case that the employee was guilty of misconduct which justified his dismissal. 6. These observations do lend support to the submission of the learned Counsel that the employer is entitled to prove that the dismissal was justified on the merits. 6. These observations do lend support to the submission of the learned Counsel that the employer is entitled to prove that the dismissal was justified on the merits. This question gains relevance and importance only when the tribunal finds that the domestic enquiry is not binding. But, I am unable to read the observations in the case mentioned above as being tantamount to the position that in every case, the employer is entitled to rely merely upon the validity of the domestic enquiry in its pleadings, and raise the question only after the closure of evidence and completion of arguments in the case. Normally, the procedure would be that the employer should take alternative pleas in the pleadings, and then it would be for the tribunal to decide whether it would decide the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue or otherwise. If the employer does not take the plea that if the domestic enquiry is held not binding, it would establish by evidence that the employee was guilty of misconduct, it cannot be said that the tribunal is bound, in law, to afford an opportunity to the employer at the close of the arguments in the case to lead evidence to prove that the employee was guilty of misconduct. It will be a matter relating to the discretion of the tribunal. 7. In Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd v. The Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd., A.I.R. 1965 SC 1803 the Supreme Court observed (Paragraph 12): "If it is held that in cases where the employer dismisses his employee without holding an enquiry, the dismissal must be set aside by the industrial tribunal only on that ground, it would inevitably mean that the employer would immediately proceed to hold the enquiry and pass an order dismissing the employee once again. In that case, another industrial dispute would arise and the employer would be entitled to rely upon the enquiry which he had held in the meantime. This course, would mean delay and on the second occasion it will entitle the employer to claim the benefit of the domestic enquiry. In that case, another industrial dispute would arise and the employer would be entitled to rely upon the enquiry which he had held in the meantime. This course, would mean delay and on the second occasion it will entitle the employer to claim the benefit of the domestic enquiry. On the other hand, if in such cases the employer given an opportunity to justify the impugned dismissal on the merits, the employee has the advantage of having the merits of his case being considered by the tribunal for itself and that clearly would be to the benefit of the employee. That is why this Court has consistently held that if the domestic enquiry is irregular, invalid or improper, the tribunal may give an opportunity to the employer to prove his case and in doing so, the tribunal tries the merits itself. This view is consistent with the approach which industrial adjudication generally adopts with a view to do justice between the parties without relying too much on technical considerations and with the object of avoiding delay in the disposal of industrial disputes." 8. These observations are apposite and appropriate. The Labour Court is to approach the situation which has arisen in the present case in the light of these guiding principles. It is true that in the present case, the employer did not expressly take the alternative plea before it was too late, namely, before the tribunal had to pass final orders. But the tribunal is also under an element of duty to see that justice is done between the parties; that is to say, the crucial question whether the employee was guilty of misconduct is as far as possible, adjudicated by it without undue delay, if the employer is disabled from proving this point in the present proceedings, it may well lead to another industrial adjudication subsequently. That will not, as observed by the Supreme .Court, benefit the workman, or advance the cause of industrial adjudication. The labour Court seems to be influenced by the circumstance that the argument on behalf of the workman was that the charge-sheet was vague and defective, and, if that point succeeded, there would be no use entertaining additional evidence on the merits of the charges. On this point, the Labour Court misapprehended the correct legal position. The labour Court seems to be influenced by the circumstance that the argument on behalf of the workman was that the charge-sheet was vague and defective, and, if that point succeeded, there would be no use entertaining additional evidence on the merits of the charges. On this point, the Labour Court misapprehended the correct legal position. In law, the employer is entitled to prove that the employee was guilty of misconduct for which the impugned action could have been taken. The employer does not have to prove merely that the charge-sheet as framed by it was valid. Assuming it was not valid the employer can still prove that the employee was guilty of misconduct. The vagueness or invalidity of the charge-sheet would not be the end of the matter. 9. It is true that the management in this case has brought about the situation because of its own laches in not taking this plea at the proper But in the interest of justice between the parties, it would, in my opinion, have been appropriate to compensate the workman by award of damages. Mr. Khare, appearing for the petitioner, states that the petitioner would pay to the respondent workman a sum of Rs. 300 by way of compensation. In my opinion, the offer is fair and reasonable, and would meet the ends of justice. 10. The petition, therefore, succeeds, and is allowed. The impugned order dated 22nd June, 1968, is set aside. The Labour Court is directed to permit the petitioner to amend its pleadings appropriately and to permit the parties to lead additional evidence on the question whether the workman was guilty of misconduct. The petitioner would pay a sum of Rs. 300 to respondent No. 2 on or before the first date fixed by the Labour Court now. In default, the writ petition shall stand dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court.