JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - In this writ application, the employer has assailed the awards of the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. Misc. Case Nos. 6/86 and 16/86 declaring the termination of the services of opposite parties 3 to 7 as invalid declining to grant approval u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, "the Act") and declaring that the workmen would be deemed to be continuing in employment without interruption and entitled to wages and other service benefits. 2. On allegation that the opposite parties 3 to 7 assaulted Shri Ramakanta Banu, Supervisor, while he was proceeding to report to duty, they were dismissed from service with effect from August 1, 1986. The workmen filed an application u/s 33A of the Act against the management for contravention of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 33(2)(b) of the Act as the management had not sought approval from the Tribunal prior to the dismissal. The application was registered as I.D. Misc. Case No. 6 of 1986. An application filed by the management u/s 33(2)(b) was registered I.D. Misc. Case No. 16 of 1986. The workmen had alleged that the punishment of dismissal had been imposed without a disciplinary proceeding, whereas the management pleaded that there was no infirmity in the termination of the services of the opposite parties 3 to 7. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated and at the said enquiry, the workmen had failed to establish their innocence and there was no infraction of the principles of natural justice. The management further pleaded that it would substantiate its action "through documentary and oral evidence at the time of hearing" and sought the dismissal of the application filed by the workmen both on the preliminary ground as well as on merits. 3. The application filed by the management and that filed by the workmen were clubbed together at the request of the parties for analogous hearing and disposal. At the hearing, the management examined one witness and the workmen examined three witnesses and documents were exhibited and award was passed, as stated above. 4. The Tribunal held that the application u/s 33(2)(b) filed by the management had not been simultaneously despatched. Secondly, the enquiry was not fair and proper inasmuch as the workmen were not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend themselves and there was violation of principles of natural justice. 4. The Tribunal held that the application u/s 33(2)(b) filed by the management had not been simultaneously despatched. Secondly, the enquiry was not fair and proper inasmuch as the workmen were not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend themselves and there was violation of principles of natural justice. Thirdly, the Tribunal held that there was no material before it to justify the termination of services of the workmen on grounds of misconduct. The Tribunal even observed that no request was made by the management to adduce evidence before it to establish the charges and justify the punishment imposed. 5. It was contended by the counsel for the management that the application u/s 33(2)(b) was forwarded to the Labour Court instead of the Industrial Tribunal before which the Industrial dispute was pending due to typographical mistake. As soon as the mistake was detected, necessary steps were taken. This point should not detain us here having regard to the more important question on which the case proceeded. The management has not disputed the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the enquiry was not fair and proper inasmuch as the workmen had not been afforded adequate opportunity to defend themselves and principles of natural justice were contravened thereby. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Tribunal should have framed a preliminary issue if the enquiry was fair and proper and it should have called upon the management to substantiate the charges and the punishment if it were of the view that the enquiry was not fair and proper. By its failure to grant the management an opportunity, it failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under the law. Therefore, the award was not sustainable. 6. The questions that were mooted were if the Tribunal was obliged to frame a preliminary issue as to whether the enquiry was fair and proper and then if the finding was against the management, to call upon it to adduce evidence and if the failure of the Tribunal to give an opportunity to the management and to call upon it to adduce evidence vitiated the award. A good bunch of decisions of the Supreme Court and of the High Court was placed before us for our consideration. 7. In our opinion, it is not obligatory on the Industrial Tribunal to frame a preliminary issue. Law does not obligate to hear the matter piecemeal. A good bunch of decisions of the Supreme Court and of the High Court was placed before us for our consideration. 7. In our opinion, it is not obligatory on the Industrial Tribunal to frame a preliminary issue. Law does not obligate to hear the matter piecemeal. Law does not enjoin the Tribunal to decide if the enquiry was fair and proper initially and to grant an opportunity to the management if the finding went against it, to adduce evidence on the delinquency of the workmen and the punishment imposed. We may refer to only a few decisions to avoid fruitless repetition. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh ( 1972 LLJ 180 ), an employee was dismissed after an enquiry into allegations of misconduct. Since an industrial dispute between the employers and their workmen was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, the employers made an application to the Tribunal u/s 33(2)(b) of the Act for permission to dismiss the employee. After the arguments in that application were over, the Tribunal reserved its judgment. Thereafter the employers filed an application praying that if the enquiry was found to be defective, they should be given an opportunity to lead evidence in order to justify the dismissal of the employee. The Tribunal did not deal with the said application, but held in the main proceeding that the findings of the enquiry officer were not in accordance with the evidence and, therefore, the enquiry was vitiated. Accordingly it refused permission for the dismissal of the employee. In appeal filed by the employers, it was held by the Supreme Court that proceedings on a reference u/s 10 or by way of an application u/s 33 of the Act, in cases in which a domestic enquiry had been held, it was open to the employer to rely upon it in the first instance, and alternatively, and without prejudice to its plea that the enquiry was proper, simultaneously adduce additional evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action. The employer must avail of the opportunity to lead evidence by making suitable request before the proceedings are closed. In Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., (1979 LLLJ 194), the application made by the employers u/s 33(2)(b) was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the enquiry leading to the termination of the employee's service was vitiated. The employer must avail of the opportunity to lead evidence by making suitable request before the proceedings are closed. In Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., (1979 LLLJ 194), the application made by the employers u/s 33(2)(b) was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the enquiry leading to the termination of the employee's service was vitiated. In Letters Patent Appeal, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that after holding that the enquiry was vitiated, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to give an opportunity to the employers to lead evidence to prove the charges made against the employee. And so holding, it remanded the matter to the Tribunal for giving the employer an opportunity to lead further evidence, if they so desired. The Supreme Court, on appeal by the employee, held that while adjudicating upon the legality or propriety of an order of termination of service, either u/s 10 or u/s 33 of the Act, no duty is cast on the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court to call upon the employer to adduce evidence to substantiate the charge of misconduct against the employee. It was for the employer to avail of an opportunity to lead evidence by a specific pleading or by a specific request. If no such opportunity was sought nor was there any pleading to that effect, the Tribunal or the Labour Court was under no obligation to call upon the employer suo motu to adduce evidence to substantiate the charges against the employee. Since there was no pleading nor was any request made at the appropriate time to afford an opportunity to lead evidence for substantiating the charges against the employee, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was in error in giving an opportunity to the employer. The plea of the employer that a request had been made after the proceedings were adjourned for pronouncement of award was not countenanced holding that the stage for availing of the opportunity had already passed. 8. The contentions raised by the workman in his written statement of defence in the proceeding u/s 33 of the Act put the management to notice that the enquiry conducted by it has been assailed as unfair and improper, or the findings reached at the enquiry have been assailed as vitiated and unsustainable. 8. The contentions raised by the workman in his written statement of defence in the proceeding u/s 33 of the Act put the management to notice that the enquiry conducted by it has been assailed as unfair and improper, or the findings reached at the enquiry have been assailed as vitiated and unsustainable. Then if the management chooses to exercise its right of sustaining its action by adducing additional evidence, it must make up its mind at the earliest stage and file the application for the purpose without any unreasonable delay. Where, however, the question arises on a reference u/s 10 of the Act after the workman has been punished pursuant to a finding of guilt recorded against him in domestic enquiry, there is no question of the management filing an application for permission to lead further evidence in support of the charge or charges framed against the workman for the defect in the domestic enquiry is pointed out by the workman in his written statement filed in the enquiry before the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal after the reference had been received and the management has the opportunity to look into the statement before it files its written statement of defence in the enquiry and can make the request for the opportunity therein itself. If it does not choose to do so at that stage, it cannot be allowed to do it at any later stage of the proceedings by filing any application which would result in delay. Where the plea is not taken in the written statement but an application is filed, the management has to satisfy the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal as to why the request was not made at the appropriate stage and if the request was dilatory in nature and if the management was not of questionable motive. Where the explanation is not convincing, it is open to the Labour Court or the Tribunal to reject the application. It is not a proposition of law that as and when it suits the convenience of the employer at any stage of the proceedings, it can make an application and the Labour Court or the Tribunal was obliged to grant the same (See Shambhunath v. Bank of Baroda ( 1983 LLJ 415 at 425) 9. Going through the record of I.D. Misc. Going through the record of I.D. Misc. Case No. 6 of 1986 we find that the management had filed an application in September, 1986, vide Annexure-6, pleading "The opposite party-management also undertakes to substantiate its action through documentary and oral evidence at the time of hearing". Assuming the said pleading was sufficient adequate plea seeking an opportunity to adduce further evidence, if the Tribunal held that the enquiry was not fair and proper, the record does not reveal that at any point of time in course of the proceeding they sought in articulate manner to exercise their right. They led evidence but not with a view to substantiating the allegations. They remained silent as if under an impression that they will be called upon by the Tribunal to adduce evidence if it were of the view that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Where piece-meal disposal has been directed by the Tribunal or the Labour Court and all the controversies are to be disposed of simultaneously, there is no scope for the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court disclosing its mind to the parties. It is for the party to remain alert and exercise its right. The management did not move the Tribunal for adducing evidence. Filing of an application was not necessary even. It could have adduced evidence with a view to substantiating the allegations. Having regard to the settled position of law, as is evident from the three decisions of the Supreme Court, referred to above, the Tribunal has rightly observed that "no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the Management in respect of the charges levelled against the workmen. They only examined the Enquiry Officer to prove the manner in which the enquiry was conducted. Three of the workmen were examined who denied the allegations made against them in the charge-sheet and also challenged the manner in which the enquiry was conducted against them ex parte". Where even the workmen were aware of the legal position and adduced evidence with regard to the merits of the allegations, the management must thank itself if it did not follow the course prescribed by law. We see, therefore, no error in the conclusion of the Tribunal that the management had failed to justify its "action of dismissing the workmen on grounds of misconduct by adducing prima facie evidence in support of the charges". 10. We see, therefore, no error in the conclusion of the Tribunal that the management had failed to justify its "action of dismissing the workmen on grounds of misconduct by adducing prima facie evidence in support of the charges". 10. We, therefore, reject the writ application. The management is directed to discharge its obligation regarding payment of wages and grant of service benefits to opposite parties 3 to 7 without delay. 11. There would be no order as to costs. S.C Mohapatra, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed