JUDGMENT K.A. Nayar, J. 1. It is agreed by counsel on both sides that this case is covered by the decision in O.P. 10634 of 1987. 2. Petitioner in this case is the Management who dismissed one of the employee viz. Sri K. Ramakrishnan, Salesman, with effect from September 16, 1982. The dismissal of Shri K. Ramakrishnan was referred by the Government to the Labour Court, Kozhikode for adjudication. The Labour Court numbered the same as I.D. No. 10 of 1985 and tried the validity of the disciplinary enquiry as a preliminary issue. It held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management was defective, as no proper charge had been framed by the management against the workman before the dismissal and the charge framed was very vague. Though the Enquiry Officer framed charges and examined witnesses to prove those charges, the Labour Court held that the Enquiry Officer is incompetent to frame charges and hence evidence cannot be relied on. He also found that the details of the second charge were also not given. He, therefore, passed an award holding that the dismissal of the workman is not proper and, therefore, set aside the dismissal order. Hence, the management was directed to reinstate the workman in service with all the benefits, inclusive of backwages and continuity of service. 3. The purpose of the charge is to know what exactly is the case the workman has to answer. Even if the domestic enquiry is vitiated, the Labour Court has a duly to give the Management an opportunity to prove its case, provided such an opportunity is asked for before proceedings are closed. In Shankar Chakravari v. Britannia Biscuit Company (1979-I-LLJ-194), in S.S.N. Goval v. Bank of Baroda, (1983-II- LLJ-415) and in Rajendra Jha v. Labour Court, Bakara Steel and Ors,, (1984-II-LLJ-459) it was held that such an opportunity has to be claimed by the Management at the earliest opportunity. In this case, it is seen from paragraph 5 of Ext. P5 award that the Management has asked in the written statement for an opportunity to substantiate the charges against the workman in case the domestic enquiry is found to be defective. In the written statement filed by the Management it was stated that the Enquiry Officer had framed charges and communicated it to the workman. P5 award that the Management has asked in the written statement for an opportunity to substantiate the charges against the workman in case the domestic enquiry is found to be defective. In the written statement filed by the Management it was stated that the Enquiry Officer had framed charges and communicated it to the workman. The parties want for trial fully, knowing that what is the case they have to answer or substantiate before the Labour Court or even before the domestic tribunal. 4. Since in the identical case referred to above, which, it is agreed, coveres the point, 1 am not examining the case whether the domestic enquiry, even in the absence of charge sheet, is valid or not. Even if no domestic enquiry is held or if the domestic enquiry held is invalid, it is now well settled that the management can justify the action by leading relevant evidence before the Tribunal. It has been so held in the decision in the Workman of Firesione Tyre and Rubber Co. v. The Management, (1973-I-LLJ-278) and Workman of Motipur Sugar Factory v. Motipur Sugar Factory, (1965-II-LLJ-162). If an employer dismissed a workman on the spot, it cannot be stated that the employer has no remedy when a dispute is raised. The entire matter will be at large before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has to come to a finding on the basis of the evidence adduced before it as to whether the management was right and further as to what relief, if any, the employee is entitled to. Just because no charge was framed before the dismissal or no enquiry was held, it cannot be stated that when the dispute is referred the Management will be directed to reinstate the workman with backwages without giving an opportunity to the management to prove the case before the Tribunal. In Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Workman, (198i-II-LLJ-218)the Supreme Court held: (pp 221-22): "It is settled law now that when no enquiry has been held or the enquiry held has not been proper, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to allow the management to lead evidence to justify the action taken. The contention is that the charge-sheets being vague, the Tribunal would not be in a position to decide what evidence to let in, and, therefore, sending the matter back to the Tribunal would only be an idle formality. The contention is that the charge-sheets being vague, the Tribunal would not be in a position to decide what evidence to let in, and, therefore, sending the matter back to the Tribunal would only be an idle formality. It is not possible to accept this contention. Normally an inquiry by the management starts by issuing a charge sheet to the workman proposed to be discharged or dismissed. In a case where the charge sheet is vague, it must be held that there has been no proper inquiry. In Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shri Jai Singh and Ors., (1961-II-LLJ-644) this court held: "But the mere fact that no inquiry has been held or that the inquiry has not been properly conducted cannot absolve the Tribunal of its duty to decide whether the case that the workman has been guilty of the alleged misconduct has been made out. The proper way for performing this duly where there has not been a proper inquiry by the management is for the Tribunal to take evidence of both sides in respect of the alleged misconduct." Whether in a case, as the one before us, wherer it is found that proper charge-sheets had not been served on the workman, the Tribunal can ask the parties to lead evidence to enable the Tribunal to decide the dispute between them is directly covered fay an authority of this Court. In Management of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its workmen(1962-II-LLJ-498), Gajendragadkar J. (as he then was) speaking for the court said: (p:501): .... ..if it appears that the departmental inquiry held by the employer is not fair in the sense that proper charge had 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 disputes as to the dismissal of ihe employee for itself. The same result follows if no enquiry has been held at all. The same result follows if no enquiry has been held at all. In other words, where ihe 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 inquiry 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." When the matter is proved before the Tribunal/Labour Court and if it is found that the action taken by the management is justified, it is for the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders on the question of relief. It may be that the Management is permitted to adduce fresh evidence only in cases where the management asked for it. In this case, admittedly, such an opportunity has been asked for in the written statement. The Labour Court also noted this fact in paragraph 5 of the Award wherein it is stated that the written statement of the management contains a request for granting an opportunity to substantiate the charge against the workman in case the domestic enquiry is found to be defective. If such an opportunity is not given, it will be possible for the management to take action once again after framing proper charge leading to the dismissal of the workman again. This means delay and duplication of work and hardship involved to workman in having to face the domestic enquiry and the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal. 5. In Ext. P5 it is stated that in so far as the Management has not framed charges against the workman before the dismissal no further opportunity could be given to adduce evidence. When the entire matter is before the Labour Court, there will be pleadings before him viz, claim statement on behalf of the workman and written statement on behalf of the management in reply there to. Specific issues can be framed, and the parties will be able to know what exactly is the case they have to meet. Absence of a separate charge sheet issued by the management itself before domestic enquiry commenced is immaterial in such cases. The question is whether the workman is guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. Specific issues can be framed, and the parties will be able to know what exactly is the case they have to meet. Absence of a separate charge sheet issued by the management itself before domestic enquiry commenced is immaterial in such cases. The question is whether the workman is guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. This is to be examined by the Labour Court on the basis of pleadings and issues raised, and evidence adduced before him. Award passed on like reasoning was quashed by this Court in O.P. 10634/87 and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for proceedings afresh. In view, of this, I quash Ext. P5 award and the matter is remitted to the Labour Court for proceedings afresh in accordance with the law. The Original Petition is disposed of as above.