JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) TWO short questions have been raised in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 2. ) PETITIONER was an employee of the Bharat Commerce and Industries, birlagram (respondent No. 1 ). On February 25, 1969, a charge-sheet was issued to him alleging that he had taken active part in an illegal strike on february 22, 1969. He was suspended from service on the same day. The petitioner submitted his explanation. An enquiry was held.-Eventually, by order dated May 8, 1969, the petitioner was dismissed. ( 3. ) IN case No. 51 of 1969, the Labour Court, Ujjain, held on March 30, 1970, that the strike was illegal. ( 4. ) THE first contention is that the dismissal of the petitioner was ultra vires the law inasmuch as section-83 (1) (g) of the M. P. Industrial Relations act, 1960, is a bar to such dismissal, before it has been held by a Labour Court or an Industrial Court that the strike was illegal. The argument is that in the present case, the strike was held illegal subsequent to the dismissal of the petitioner. The strike was held illegal on March 30, 1970, whereas the petitioner had been dismissed earlier on May 8, 1969. Section 83 (1) (g) of the Act reads thus:- "83 (1) No employer shall dismiss, discharge or reduce any employee or punish him in any other manner by reason of the circumstance that the employee-X X X X X (g) has gone on or joined a strike which has not been held by a Labour Court or the industrial Court to be illegal under the provisions of this Act. " It is strenuously urged that there must be a predetermination of the illegality of a strike, otherwise the dismissal will be a nullity. The section is plain enough. The bar is against the dismissal by reason of an employee going on joining a strike which strike has not been held illegal. The language is in the double negative. The bar will come into operation only in case where the strike has not been held to be illegal. That is not the case here. What is to be shown by the employee is that he could not be dismissed by reason of his having gone on or joined a strike, because the strike has not been held to be illegal. That is not the case here. What is to be shown by the employee is that he could not be dismissed by reason of his having gone on or joined a strike, because the strike has not been held to be illegal. It is not the petitioners case that the strike has not been held to be illegal. It is common ground that the strike has been held to be illegal. ( 5. ) THE approach which the learned counsel for the petitioners wants to us to adopt is that section 83 (1) (g) of the Act should be read in the positive jterm, that is an employee can be dismissed by reason of his having gone on or joined a strike, if that strike has been held to be illegal. Learned counsel goes a step further and argues that the strike must have been held to be illegal before the employee is dismissed. We are unable to accept the contention that the strike must have been held illegal in point of time before an order of dismissal is passed otherwise the dismissal will be invalid. The expression "which has not been held to be illegal is an adjective clause, which qualifies the word "strike". A strike may be held illegal, or may not be held illegal. If it has been held illegal, then the bar comes into operation, otherwise not. We are clearly of the view that it has to be seen at the time of deciding a proceeding in which the dismissal is challenged, whether the strike has not been held illegal or has been held illegal. The language of the section does not create a bar to an employee being dismissed, unless and until the strike has been held to be illegal. That will be doing violence to the language of the law. We do not go into the wisdom of the Legislature but there is nothing in the wording of the section to can note that the dismissal of the employee shall await the decision on the nature of the strike, whether it was not illegal or was illegal. The employer takes the risk of dismissing an employee by reason of his having gone on or joined a strike, because, if eventually the strike, is not held illegal, the dismissal will be invalid and the employee will be entitled to consequential benefits. The employer takes the risk of dismissing an employee by reason of his having gone on or joined a strike, because, if eventually the strike, is not held illegal, the dismissal will be invalid and the employee will be entitled to consequential benefits. We are of the view that the dismissal of an employee is valid even before the determination whether the strike is illegal or not and the bar of section 83 (1) (g) operates only to this extent that if on the date when the validity of the dismissal is to be determined, the dismissal will be held invalid if by that time the strike has not been held illegal. ( 6. ) THE other contention is that the dismissal is invalid because the charge sheet given to the petitioner was vague. In the instant case, the Presiding officer of the Labour Court found the domestic enquiry to be bad in law and, consequently, he had given an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence. It is after considering that evidence that the Labour Court came to a conclusion. The question of vagueness of the charge was raised even before the industrial Court, but that contention was repelled on the ground that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. Even before us, the petitioner could not make out a prejudice that was caused to him. Even assuming that the charge-sheet was vague, the fact remains that the employer had laid evidence in regard to the misconduct before the Labour Court and that would be giving sufficient notice and knowledge to the petitioner as regards the facts and circumstances, which, according to the employer, make out a case of misconduct against him. Such a situation was considered by their Lordships in Ritz Theatre (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Its Workman1. In that decision, it was observed as follows:- "it has also been held that if it appears that the departmental enquiry held by the employer is not fair in the sense that proper charge bad not been served on the employee or proper or full opportunity had not been given to the employee to meet the charge or the enquiry has been affected by other grave irregularities vitiating it, then the position would be that the Tribunal would be entitled to deal with the merits of the dispute as to the dismissal of the employee for itself. The same result follows if no enquiry has been held at all. In other words, where the Tribunal is dealing with a dispute relating to the dismissal of an industrial employee, if it is satisfied that no enquiry has been held or the enquiry which has been held is not proper or fair or that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are perverse, the whole issue is at large before the Tribunal. This position also is well-settled. " In view of this, there is no merit in this contention either. ( 7. ) NO other point was urged. ( 8. ) THE petition is without substance. It is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. The amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.