JUDGMENT - Padhye R.S. J.:-Respondent was working as a Manager in the Bidi factory of petitioner Co-operative Society. His services came to be terminated-ed by a notice dated 1–1-1975 and the termination was to take effect from the next day. Respondent contended that he received this notice on 4–1-1975. The notice discloses that respondent was being removed on the ground of negligence in work and bad behaviour in the factory. Respondent filed appeal (BCWA) No. 127 of 1975 in the Court of 3rd Labour Court, Nagpur under section 31(2) of the Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966. Referring to sub-section (1) of section 31 of the said Act Labour Court found that the employer has failed to give one month's notice and had also failed to comply with the proviso to sub-section (1) of sec-tion 31 of the said Act, which exempted giving of one month's notice if “the services of such employee are dispensed with on the charge of misconduct supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an enquiry held by the employer for the purpose. Admittedly, in the present case no enquiry was held and, therefore, the finding of the labour Court that sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 was not complied with by the employer, seems to be unassailable. During the course of the enquiry an application dated 17–11–1975 was moved on behalf off the 'employer for permission to prove the alleged misconduct of the employee by adducing evidence in the Court and without hearing the other side this application was allowed by the Court. However, at the stage of evidence employer was not allowed to lead any evidence for proving the alleged misconduct of the employee because in the opinion of the Court: “there is absolutely no provision in B. C. W. Act so as to permit the employer to prove the misconduct in the Court and no inquiry has been held before the termination of the services of employees. The said enactment is a special enactment and, as such, the dispute instituted under it has to be examined strictly within the compass of the provisions made there under.” According to Shri M. P. M. Pillai, learned counsel appearing for petitioner this view of the Labour Court is prima facie erroneous and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this short ground. 2. Section 31(2) of the Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 providing the remedy to a dismissed, discharged or retrenched worker is in the following words: “31(2) (a): The employee discharged, dismissed or retrenched may appeal to such authority and within such time as may be prescribed either on the ground that there was no reasonable cause for dispensing with his services or on the ground that he had not been guilty of misconduct as held by the employer or on the ground that such punishment of discharge or dismissal was severe. (b) The appellate authority may, after giving notice in the prescribed-ed manner to the employer and the employee, dismiss the appeal or direct the reinstatement of the employee with or without wages for the period during which he was kept out of employment or direct payment of compensation without reinstatement or grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 3. A perusal of the above section makes it clear that an employee can challenge an order of dismissal, discharge or retrenchment; firstly, on the ground that no reasonable cause for dispensing with his services existed; secondly on the ground that he was not guilty of misconduct as held by the employer; and thirdly, on the ground that punishment of dismissal or discharge was severe. When an employee can adduce evidence to show that there was no reasonable cause to dispense with his services or that he was not guilty of misconduct, it is difficult to accept the view of the Labour Court that in the absence of a special provision in the Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, an employer who has failed to hold an enquiry as contemplated by proviso to section 31 (1) of the said Act cannot be allowed to justify the charges or alleged misconduct in the Court by adducing evidence. Even prior to introduction of section 2(A) and 11 (A) in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Supreme Court of India has consistently held that in those cases under the Industrial Disputes Act in which it was found that an enquiry was not held at all or that the enquiry held was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice, employer has to be allowed a chance to establish the alleged misconduct in the Court by adducing evidence. . 4. Result is, the petition is allowed; the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the appeal in question is remanded to Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur to whom I am told, jurisdiction of deciding appeals under section 31 of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 taluka Brahmapuri district Chanda has been en-trusted. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.