RAMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is presented by the Karnataka state road transport corporation ('corporation'for short), praying for quashing the order of the labour court,bangalore dated 27th october, 1984 refusing to permit the corporation to adduce evidence in support of the mis-conductalleged against the first-respondent afteran order was made by the labour court holding that the domestic enquiry held bythe corporation pursuant to which the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed against the first-party, was invalid, as also against the award made by the labour court directing the reinstatement of the first-respondent into service of the corporation with 50% of back-wages and consequential benefits. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case arethese : the first-respondent was a conductress in the service of the corporationsince 1964. In the year 1977 disciplinary proceedings were instituted against her oncertain charges of misconduct. After holding an enquiry, penalty of dismissal from service was imposed against her byorder - dated 15-10-1977. Thereafter, by an order dated 18th June 1982 the state government referred the dispute between the first-respondent and the petitioner about the legality of the dismissal of the first-respondent from service, to the labour court, Bangalore under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the labour court, a preliminary objection was raised by the first-respondent that the domestic enquiry held against her, pursuant to which the penalty was imposed, itself was invalid. The labour court took up for consideration the said preliminary issue for consideration on 27-10-84. The labour court made an order holding that the domestic enquiry was bad in law. According to the order-sheet found in the original records of the labour court, after pronouncing the order on the preliminary issue, the case was posted for further proceedings on 5-11-84. On 5-11-84 the case was adjourned to 12-11-84. On 12-11-84 the petitioner-corporation filed an application to lead evidence on the merits of the case and it was posted to 19-11-84 for objections, on which date the first respondent filed objections. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 3-12-84. On 10-12-84, the labour court passed the impugned order. On 5-11-84 the case was adjourned to 12-11-84. On 12-11-84 the petitioner-corporation filed an application to lead evidence on the merits of the case and it was posted to 19-11-84 for objections, on which date the first respondent filed objections. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 3-12-84. On 10-12-84, the labour court passed the impugned order. ( 3 ) BEFORE the labour court it was contended on behalf of the first-respondent that if the corporation considered that it should adduce evidence in support of the charges of misconduct levelled against the first-respondent before the labour court itself in the event of the domestic enquiry being held invalid, the corporation ought to have claimed such an opportunity in the written counter-statement itself filed to the claim statement of the first-respondent, and as no such request was made in the counter-statement, no subsequent request after the pronouncement of the order on the issue of validity of domestic - enquiry could be entertained in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1984 S. C. 289 - (1984) 1 s c. r. 85) - (shambhunath goyal v bank of baroda and others ). ( 4 ) IT was pointed on behalf of the first respondent that in the said case the Supreme Court had laid down that in a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, after the written claim statement is filed by the workman, the management could make a request for opportunity to lead evidence in support of the charges in the written-counter statement itself, in the event of the domestic enquiry being held invalid and, if the management did not choose to do so, it could not be allowed to make such an application at a later stage. Following the said decision, the labour court dismissed the application of the corporation. Thereafter, the labour court proceeded to make an award in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by tha said Order, the corporation has presented this petition. Following the said decision, the labour court dismissed the application of the corporation. Thereafter, the labour court proceeded to make an award in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by tha said Order, the corporation has presented this petition. ( 5 ) SRI l. Govindaraj, the learned counsel for the corporation, contended that all along it has been the practice to file applications seeking an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the misconduct on the basis of which a workman was removed from service, immediately after the labour court recorded a finding that the domestic enquiry, pursuant to which the workman concerned was removed or dismissed from service, was invalid, and in the present case also shortly after the order was made by the labour court holding that the domestic enquiry was invalid, an application was filed on behalf of the corporation seeking permission to adduce evidence in support of the misconduct and, therefore, the labour court was not justified in rejecting the said application. In support of his submission that, that was the sanctioned procedure the learned counsel relied on the decision in the cooper engineering ltd. , v p. P. Mundhe (AIR 1975 S. C. 1900 ). Relevant portion reads :"we are, therefore clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the labour court should first decide as 3 preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the labour court. "the learned counsel relying on the above decision submitted that the said decision indicates that the practice prevailing was to make the request immediately after the pronouncement of the order regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry to adduce evidence, and by such procedure no prejudice would be caused to the workman concerned. "the learned counsel relying on the above decision submitted that the said decision indicates that the practice prevailing was to make the request immediately after the pronouncement of the order regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry to adduce evidence, and by such procedure no prejudice would be caused to the workman concerned. He also submitted that the procedure for adducing evidence before the labour court itself was not on account of any statutory provision but was a procedure evolved in the decisions of the Supreme Court to bring about final-adjudication of the industrial dispute and that any denial of opportunity to adduce evidence before the labour court on the ground that no such specific request was made in the counter-statement, would only result in the continuing of the dispute as in that event the management might hold an enquiry denovo and it would give rise to another industrial dispute and as a result the very object with which the aforesaid procedure was evolved would be defeated. The learned counsel further submitted that though it was true that in shambunath goval's case there was an observation to the offset that unless a request to adduce evidence was incorporated in the counter-statement itself by the management no such request could be entertained subsequently, that view has been departed from, by the Supreme Court itself in the case of rajendra jha v presiding officer, labour court, bokaro steel city, dhanbad ( AIR 1984 SC 1696 ). ( 6 ) OUR difficulty for examining the above submission is, a similar argument was addressed before a division bench of this court in writ appeal No. 61/1385 (m/co v labour court and anr.) Dd; 12-12-1989, and the same was rejected by the division bench. Therefore, it is not open for us to entertain and consider the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner corporation. Therefore, it is not open for us to entertain and consider the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner corporation. ( 7 ) SRI govindaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner-corporation, contended that, if the management is deprived of an opportunity of adducing evidence before the labour court, liberty should be reserved to the management to hold inquiry, it is unnecessary for the appellant to seek any such liberty from the labour court or this court for, when an order imposing penalty is set aside merely on the ground that the domestic inquiry was invalid on account of non-complying with the rules of procedure or natural Justice as held by the supreme court in the case of devendra pratap narain rai sharma v state of Uttar Pradesh and others ( AIR 1962 SC 1334 at p. 1336), the master has the right to hold inquiry. Relevant portion reads:"an adjudication on the merits by a quasi-judicial body may or may not debar commencement of another enquiry in respect of the same subject matter. But in this case we are concerned with the scope of the high court order. The binding effect of a judgment depends not upon any technical consideration of form, but of substance. The high court in the appeal filed by the appellant in suit No. 163/1954 did not exonerate the appellant from the charges. The high court decreed the suit on the ground that the procedure for imposing the penalty was irregular, and such a decision cannot prevent the state from commencing another enquiry in respect of the same subject matter consistently with the Provisions of arts. 310 and 311. "from the ratio of the above decision, it is clear that if an order of dismissal is set aside in a reference on the ground that the domestic enquiry held by the management pursuant to which removal from service of the workman was passed was invalid and the management is prevented from adducing evidence before it on the ground that the management had not made the request for adducing evidence, in the written statement, all that happens is that instead of the enquiry going on before the labour court, a denovo enquiry can take place at the discretion of the management before the competent authority. As the management has such a right, it is unnecessary for the corporation to seek liberty from the labour court or this court to hold a denovo inquiry. ( 8 ) ON the facts of this case, however, it appears to us that as the order of dismissal had been made as early as on 15-10-77, the corporation might consider as to whether any useful purpose will be served by the holding of denovo enquiry after a lapse of nearly 13-years. ( 9 ) IN the result, we make the following order. The writ petition is dismissed. Writ petition dismissed. --- *** --- .