JUDGMENT Chettur Sankaran Nair, J. 1. Petitioner management, seeks to quash Ext. P5 award of the Labour Court, Kozhikode, setting aside an order of dismissal and directing reinstatement of the workman. 2. The workman represented by first respondent union, was placed under suspension on allegations of misconduct. In due course, an enquiry officer was appointed, he framed Ext. P3 charges, held an enquiry and found the workman guilty. Eventually, the workman was dismissed from service. That led to an industrial dispute, and Ext. P5 award. The Labour Court found: "........ it is seen that the Enquiry Officer had given sufficient opportunity to the workman to put forward his case and to establish his innocence". (Underlining supplied) Yet, the Labour Court thought: "It is settled law that the management has to frame proper charges one fails to understand as to how the enquiry officer is competent to frame charges whereas his only function is to enquire into the charges framed by the management. (Underlining supplied) The order of dismissal was therefore set aside. 3. Counsel for petitioner submitted that there are no specific rules governing framing of charges. The Industrial Disputes Act nor the Rules, nor even the Standing Orders where they apply, do not prescribe any particular mode of framing charges, submits counsel. Besides, he would, submit that the Labour Court was in serious error in denying an opportunity to the management to lead evidence to justify its action, assuming there was a defect in the enquiry. 4. In reply, learned counsel for first respondent would submit that without a proper charge, an enquiry will not be valid, and that for lack of a proper charge the entire proceedings are vitiated. According to him, the Labour Court was justified in setting aside the order of dismissal. 5. After finding that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice, virtually the Labour Court found a violation of natural justice. When it found that the charge was bad, what it found was a violation of natural justice. A change is intended to meet the requirements of natural justice by informing the person against whom it is levelled of the allegations, to enable him to answer them. If this is done, the requirements of natural justice are met. The finding of the Labour Court is that: "............... A change is intended to meet the requirements of natural justice by informing the person against whom it is levelled of the allegations, to enable him to answer them. If this is done, the requirements of natural justice are met. The finding of the Labour Court is that: "............... the enquiry officer had given sufficient opportunity to the workman to put forward his case to establish his innocence". (Underlining supplied) If so, the enquiry could not have been invalidated on the reasoning that the charge was defective. The idea of a defective charge appears to be based on notions of procedure which are alien to the context. As in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no procedural requirements are prescribed for framing charges in the domestic enquiry in question. Even under the Criminal Procedure Code, a defect in the charge, without anything more will not vitiate the trial. The test is whether prejudice has resulted due to a defect, even where a defect exists in the charge. Prejudice is a question of fact, not presumption. Procedural safeguards are provided to achieve the ends of justice and not for their own sake. Procedure is the handmaid, and not the mistress. To treat a matter of substance for a matter of form, would be to take the tree for the woods. The Labour Court erred in treating a matter of substance namely requirements of natural justice as an inflexible matter of form. 6. The reason stated by the Labour Court for denying an opportunity to adduce evidence is: "The opportunity to adduce fresh evidence can be availed of by the management only if they had framed a proper charge and the domestic enquiry conducted by them is found to be defective." (Underlining supplied) The Labour Court adopted a principle, contrary to the law settled by a long line of decisions. In the Management of Ritz Theatre (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Its Workmen ( AIR 1963 SC 295 ) the court held: "........ it is however open to the employer to adduce additional evidence and satisfy the Tribunal that the dismissal of the employee concerned is justified. And in such a case, the Tribunal would give opportunity ......... to the employee to meet that evidence .........". it is however open to the employer to adduce additional evidence and satisfy the Tribunal that the dismissal of the employee concerned is justified. And in such a case, the Tribunal would give opportunity ......... to the employee to meet that evidence .........". (Emphasis supplied) Again, in P. H. Kalyani v. M/s. Air France, Calcutta ( AIR 1963 SC 1756 ) a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held: "If enquiry is defective for any reason Labour Court would also have to consider for itself on the evidence adduced before it, whether dismissal was justified". (Emphasis supplied) In Workmen of F. T. and R. Co. v. The Management and others ( AIR 1973 SC 1227 ) the Court held: "Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or if the enquiry held by him is defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order had to give an opportunity to the employer and employee to adduce evidence before it. It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time justifying his action and it is open to the employee to adduce evidence to the contra." (Emphasis supplied) The view in the Ritz's Case and in Kalyani's Case was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India Private Ltd. v. The Workmen Employed represented by Firestone Tyre Employees Union ( AIR 1981 SC 1626 ). The decision cited by the Labour Court in S & E Stamping Works Ltd. v. Its Workmen ( 1963 (2) LLJ 367 ) does not lay down any principle to the contra. The Labour Court was thus clearly in error in reading a restriction into the right of the management to lead evidence and abdicating its duty 'to consider for itself on evidence', the propriety of the order challenged. A duty inheres in the Labour Court to examine the validity of the impugned action, not only in cases where the enquiry is defective, but also in cases where there had been no enquiry. 7. The Labour Court found yet another defect, namely that the enquiry officer could not have framed a charge. There is clear authority to the contrary in Gopinathan Nair v. State (AIR 1960 Kerala 63). 7. The Labour Court found yet another defect, namely that the enquiry officer could not have framed a charge. There is clear authority to the contrary in Gopinathan Nair v. State (AIR 1960 Kerala 63). The observation of the Labour Court that, "His (Enquiry Officer) only function is to enquire into the charges framed by the management and entrusted to him", proceeds on an assumption which finds no warrant in principle or precedent. 8. For these reasons Ext. P5 award cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court for proceeding afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein - before. Writ petition is allowed. No costs.