JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, J. - Satya Deo Pandey was employed in the Watch and Ward Department at the Muir Mills at Kanpur. Muir Mills is now a unit of M/s National Textile Corporation, U. P. The duty of Satya Deo Pande was to take rounds during the duty period He was on duty from midnight of November 22, 1976 till 8 00 a.m on November 23, 1976. A surprise check was made at 4.45 a m when Satya Deo was found to be sleeping in his office. This being a misconduct under the Standing Orders applicable to the employees of the Company, a charge-sheet was given to Satya Deo and after a domestic inquiry, an order of dismissal was passed. bis was on November 1, 1977. Satya Deo was dismissed with effect from that date. The Workmen Muir Mills took up the matter and at their instance a reference was made by the State of Uttar Pradesh under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The reference was before the Labour Court III It was registered and tried as Adj Case No 103 of 1978 The Labour Court gave an award dated February 20 1980. It upheld the order of dismissal. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was then filed in which the workmen through the Suti Mill Mazdoor Union and Satya Deo Pandey are petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 The employer, namely. M/s. National Textile Corporation is the second respondent. 2. Sri Gopi Krishna Sahai was appeared on behalf of the petitioners. His first submission is that the enquiry was not conducted by an Officer empowered to do so which vitiates the enquiry as well as the conclusion of the punishing authority dismissing Satya Deo Pandey based on it. The argument is that as Senior Law Officer Sri G P Singh could only issue a charge-sheet, as was done by him but could not conduct the domestic enquiry as he was not entrusted with the power of the Manager in that regard in the notice containing delegation of powers which has been filed as Annexure HI to the petition and which was paper No. Ext. 3.04 to the proceedings before the Labour Court 3. 3.04 to the proceedings before the Labour Court 3. A look at annexure 11 shows that amongst others Sri G. P. Singh was authorised to exercise all the powers of the Manager in respect of the matters mentioned against his name in the last column. That column does not specifically mention the power to conduct domestic enquiry. 4. From the certified Standing Orders of the Company relating to watch and ward it appears that the Manager, who is defined to include a person who may be authorised by the Manager to exercise the powers of a Manager, could serve a charge-sheet upon a delinquent employee by informing him in writing the misconduct attributed to him and, giving thereafter an opportunity to him to explain the circumstances, pass an order awarding punishment alter an enquiry, if the Manager felt that such enquiry was necessary. This is provided in Standing Order No. 21. The mode of enquiry is not provided in the Standing Orders nor do the Standing Orders provide for the agency to which the enquiry could be entrusted. In the absence of any provision in that regard the holding of an enquiry by the Senior Labour Officer, who has been designated as Manager for the purpose of serving a charge-sheet cannot be treated to be an infirmity vitiating the proceedings leading to the order of dismissal. 5. It was suggested by Sri Sahai that enquiry having been held by a person who has himself served the charge-sheet, fair trial could not be said to have been given to Satya Deo Pandey as an element of bias was inherent in the Officer who submitted the charge-sheet. It is not possible to accept this submission in the circumstances of the instant case where it is found established that the charge-sheet was submitted by Sri Singh on the basis of a report made to him by one Sri R. C. Bhandari, Security Officer. There is no suggestion in this Court that Sri Singh was biased against Satya Deo Pandey. Before the Labour Court also bias could not be established by Satya Deo Pandey in relation to Sri Singh. The Labour Court felt, as is clear from its award, that Sri Singh had conducted the enquiry fairly after giving all opportunity due to the workman. 6. Before the Labour Court also bias could not be established by Satya Deo Pandey in relation to Sri Singh. The Labour Court felt, as is clear from its award, that Sri Singh had conducted the enquiry fairly after giving all opportunity due to the workman. 6. The second submission on behalf of the petitioners has been that in the domestic enquiry, proper opportunity had not been afforded to Satya Deo Pandey by the Enquiry Officer. This, it is said, was the inference from the failure of the Enquiry Officer to get the register of the dispensary and the compounder attached to the dispensary summoned during the course of enquiry proceedings. The case of the petitioners is that the register and the compounder, if called for, that the register and the compounder, if called for, would have established that Satya Deo Pandey had gone to the dispensary to take some medicine for his aching stomach in the morning of November 23, 1976 when he was supposed to have been found a sleeping while on duty. This argument was raised on behalf of the workman before the Labour Court. The finding recorded by the Labour Court is that, inasmuch as, the Enquiry Officer had looked into the register himself and the workman had not summoned the compounder as a witness, the enquiry could not be said to have been vitiated by this lapse. The argument on behalf of the petitioner is that the enquiry cannot be treated to be fair in the circumstances particularly when the dispensary where Satya Deo Pandey had gone for taking medicine belonged to the employers and the compounder was the employee of the Mill. 7. In his written statement, the workmen has said that he had gone to take medicine for his stomach ache at 4 a. m. It has also been asserted on behalf of the workman that after taking medicine he had come back to the place of his duty at 4.30 a.m. Assuming that these assertions are correct, they would not, to themselves, be destructive of the fact that at 4 40 A M. Satya Deo Pandey was found sleeping. That fact has been found established from evidence not only by the Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry but also by the Labour Court. That fact has been found established from evidence not only by the Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry but also by the Labour Court. As such, the failure of the Enquiry Officer to secure the register or attendance of the compounder as a witness for the workman could not be said to brave resulted in any prejudice to the case set up by Satya Deo Pandey before the Enquiry Officer. In this situation, without going into the question whether the workman was entitled in law to insist that the register be brought before the Enquiry Officer in the proceedings itself or that he had a right to the compounder called through the agency of the Enquiry Officer to appear as a Witness on his behalf, would decline to hold the enquiry as vitiated or being opposed to the principles of natural justice. The order of dismissal has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. It recites the fact that Satya Deo Pandey was charged with having committed an act of mis-conduct under the Standing Orders and was called upon to give his explanation which he gave and on consideration thereof it was found unacceptable. Further, that the charge was fully established against Pandey so that he was dismissed under Standing Order No. 21 with effect from February 1, 1977. Sri Satya Deo Pandey has urged that the order does not contain reasons as known for law vitiates it. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Powari Tea Estate v. Barkataki (M. K.) and others, 1965 (II) LLJ 102 in support of this submission. In particular, my attention was invited to the observation made by their Lordship of the Supreme Court at page 105 of the Report to the effect that the report of an Enquiry officer may not be elaborate but, however, brief it is, it should indicate in a broad way the conclusion of the officer and his reasoning as otherwise the legality or propriety of the dismissal which followed such a report, if assailed before an industrial tribunal or a Labour Court, could not be properly gone into, in that case, the report of the Enquiry Officer did not contain reasons for the conclusion that the charged workman was found guilty of the misconduct attributed to him. 8. 8. In the present case, the report of the Enquiry Officer has been filed as annexure C.A. T to the counter affidavit of Sri T. C Roy, Assistant Industrial Relations Officers It is a detailed report running into as many as 19 pages and mentions in detail not only the evidence in the case but also the reasons which commanded themselves to the Enquiry Officer for a conclusion that Satya Deo Pandey was found sleeping on duty. The Supreme Court has not laid down that, as a matter of law, every order of dismissal must contain the reasons therefore either in the case of power tea estate or In its decision in Khardah and Company Limited v. Its Workmen, (1963) 2 LLJ 452 , upon which also reliance was placed by counsel for Satya Deo Pandey, The Standing Orders under which action has been taken against Satya Deo Pandey also do not require incorporation of reasons in the order of dismissal. 9. The workman did not raise this aspect before the Labour Court. The award of the Labour Court cannot, therefore, be said to suffer from any error of law because as did not hold the order of dismissal of Satya Deo Pandey invalid for not containing reasons for the decisions to dismisses him from service of company. The petitioner seeks the quashing of the award of the Labour Court, inter alia, on the ground that it suffers from an error apparent on the face of record. It is difficult to grant relief on that ground on the plea that the order of dismissal was bad as it did not contain reasons in these circumstances. 10. In conclusions, it must be held that the petition lacks merit. It is dismissed but reject the parties to bear their own costs.