Honble ARORA, J. – This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.9.94 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition filed by the appellant petitioner was dismissed and the award dated 6. 3. 93 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner, was maintained . (2) Shri Guljari Lal (respondent No. 3) was appointed as the Security Guard on daily wages basis on 2.1.71 in the Office of the Central State Farm, Jetsar (district Sri Ganganagar). He continued on this post upto 22.12. 88 . The Administrative Officer , by his order dated 23.12.88, terminated the services of Guljari Lal. Conciliation proceedings were held but the same ended in failure and the Concilliation Officer, therefore, referred the matter to the State Government, and the State Gover- nment vide its order dated 7.9.90 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court , Bikaner– ^^D;k izkklfud vf/kdkjh] dsUnzh; jkT; QkeZ fy- tsrlj ftyk Jh xaxkuxj }kjk muds Jfed Jh xqytkjh yky iq=k Jh galiky ¼ftudk izfrfuf/kRo dsUnzh; jkT; QkeZ] tsrlj nSfud Jfed la?k] lhVw Jh xaxkuxj }kjk fd;k x;k gS½ dks lsok eqDr djuk mfpr ,oa oS/k gSA D;k og Jfed fdlh jkgr dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\** The workman, viz,Guljari Lal in pursuance to the notice issued to him, filed his claim. In his claim Guljari Lal submitted that he was appointed on 2.1.70 in the Office of the Central State Farm as Security Guard on daily wages basis, where he worked upto 22.12.88 and his services were terminated with effect from 23.12.88 without any notice to him. it was also submitted that he was asked to submit the Certificates of his Date of Birth and the certificate pertaining to his educational qualification and he submitted the School Certificate of the School where he studied and, therefore, his services were wrongly terminated on the ground that he played fraud with the authorities. The employer filed reply to the claim petition and admitted that the workman was employed with it on daily wages basis with effect from 6.4.77 and in order to regularise his services, his date of birth certificate, Character Certificate and the certificate pertaining to his qualification, were required and the employee was asked to furnish the same. The workman, on 29.9.85, submitted the Certificate of the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Kakra showing his date of birth as 1.11.1948 and the educational qualification as 5th passed. The workman, on 29.9.85, submitted the Certificate of the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Kakra showing his date of birth as 1.11.1948 and the educational qualification as 5th passed. The workman, also,produced one School Leaving Certificate, in which both these facts were mentioned. In order to verify the correctness of the particulars furnished by the workman, a letter was written by the petitioner- appellant to the Headmaster of the concerned School and a reply was received from the Headmaster of the school that the name of the workman is not entered in the School Register at Serial Number 726. As the workman furnished a forged certificate and tried to play fraud with the employer, therefore,he is not entitled to remain in service and his services have been terminated after giving him a notice in accordance with law. The claimant, in support of his claim, examined himself and the employer, in support of its case, examined one Megh Singh. The learned Judge of the Labour Court , after conside- ring the evidence produced on record, came to the conclusion that the services of the workman were terminated without serving him any charge-sheet and without holding any inquiry as envisaged under the Rules. It was, aslo, observed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court that before terminating the services of the workman, retrenchment compensation was also, not paid to him . He therefore, held that the order, terminating the services of the claimant, not sustainable. The learned Judge of the Labour Court therefore passed the order that the retrenchment of the workman vide order dated 23.12.88 was not legal and valid and he should be reinstated in service with all the back wages and may be treated as continuous in service. Aggrieved with the Award dated 26.3.93, passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, the appellant-petitioner(employer ) filed a writ petition before this Court. The writ petition, filed by the appellant -petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the regular domestic enquiry, required and prescribed by the Standing Order , has not preceded the order of termination and therefore, the order of retrenchment cannot sustain. It is against this judgment dated 6.9.94 that the appellant -petitioner has preferred this appeal. It is against this judgment dated 6.9.94 that the appellant -petitioner has preferred this appeal. (3) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was sufficient material available on record showing that the employee played a fraud against the appellant-petitioner in obtaining the employment and, therefore, his services were rightly terminated by the appellant. It is further submitted by the lear- ned counsel for the appellant that a notice was served upon the employee and a reply was filed by him which was considered by the Administrative Officer and only after consideration of the relevant material the services of the workman were terminated. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Labour Court was, also, authorised under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, to hold an enquiry whether the termination of the services of the workman was just and proper and the learned Judge of the Labour Court, after holding an enquiry and after consideration for the material available on record, which were the undisputed documents produced by the workman himself could have passed the appropriate order instead of setting-aside the order passed by the Administrative Officer on the ground that no departmental enquiry was held against the employee-workman. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance over : Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Lal Chand (1), Prabhu Dayal vs. The State of Raj. (2) and Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. vs. Sudh Budh Singh (3). It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge, also, did not take into consideration this aspect of the case and rejected the writ petition on the same grounds and as such the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as by the learned Judge of the Labour Court deserve to be quashed and set-aside and the case should be remanded to the Labour Court for consideration of the evidence available on re- cord : whether the services of the workman were rightly terminated? The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 (workman) on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Award passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court. (4). We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (5). The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 (workman) on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Award passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court. (4). We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. (5). Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, authorises the Labour Court to give appropriate relief in the cases of discharge or dismissal of a workman and in case where no domestic inquiry has been held by the management or where the Management does not rely upon the domestic enquiry held by it then the employer is entitled to straight-way adduce the evidence before the Labour Court justifying its action and Tribunal is bound to consider that evidence so adduced by the employer on merits and can adjudicate the controversy on the basis of the evidence so adduced. But before producing the evidence, a request has to be made by the employer before the Labour Court. In the present case, no such request was made by the appellant-employer before the Judge of the Labour Court for production of the evidence to justify its action. (6). In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Lal Chand (supra), a dispute was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court against the dismissal of the services of Lal Chand-a Conductor appointed by the R.S.R.T.C. During the proceedings, an application was moved by the employer for taking on record certain documents to justify the dismissal of Lal Chand. That application was dismissed. The Division Bench of this Court, therefore, placing reliance over the judgment of the Supreme Court given in Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. vs. Sudh Budh Singh (supra), held that ``even if no domestic enquiry was held by the appellant-petitionrer, they were entitled to straight way adduce the evidence to prove the misconduct conducted by Lal Chand-the Conductor. It may also, be mentioned here that the petitioner-respondent moved an application for summoning certain documents in order to justify the termination of Lal Chand. There is nothing on record to indicate that an order was passed on this application. It is clear from the Award Annexure 7 that this aspect of the case was not at all considered. It may also, be mentioned here that the petitioner-respondent moved an application for summoning certain documents in order to justify the termination of Lal Chand. There is nothing on record to indicate that an order was passed on this application. It is clear from the Award Annexure 7 that this aspect of the case was not at all considered. The Division Bench of this Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment as well as the Award passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner and remanded the case to the Labour Court to decide it in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence. This case is not applicable to the present controversy as no such application was moved by the employer-appellant to adduce evidence to support its action of dismissal of the services of the employee- respondent No.3. (7). In Prabhu Dayal vs. State of Raj. (supra), the State Government refused to refer the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court which was challenged by way of filing the writ petition before this Court and held that ``. . . . after the introduction of Section 11-A the Industrial Tribunal has full power and jurisdiction to enquiry (sic) has been held and finding of misconduct recorded. The Tribunal is to satisfy itself whether the enquiry is fair and the evidence justifies the finding of misconduct. And even if the enquiry is held to be proper and the finding of misconduct is accepted, the Tribunal has also power and/or jurisdiction to consider whether the punishment requires modification. Further, neither the fact that no enquiry was held at all nor that the enquiry held is found to be defective, stands in the way of the employer to justify his action by adducing evidence before the Tribunal for the first time. The facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts in the present case. In that case the validity of the domestic enquiry was not considered by the State Government and the State Government, after writing the full facts, rejected the application filed by the petitioner and, therefore, the Division Bench set-aside the order passed by the State Government. The issue decided in Prabhu Dayals case is different and is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (8). The issue decided in Prabhu Dayals case is different and is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (8). In Delhi Cloth & General Mills vs. L.B. Singh (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court, in para No.60 of the judgment, that ``if no domestic enquiry had been held by the management or if the management makes it clear that it does not rely upon any domestic enquiry that may have been held by it, it is entitled to straightway adduce evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action. The Tribunal is bound to consider that evidence so adduced before it, on merits, and give a decision thereon. In such a case, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the validity of the domestic enquiry as the employer himself does not rely on it. The principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Para No. 60(5) is that ``the management has got a right to attempt to sustain its order by adducing independent evidence before the Tribunal, but the management should avail itself of the said opportunity by making a suitable request to the Tribunal before the proceedings are closed. If no such opportunity has been availed of, or asked for by the management, before the proceedings are closed, the employer can make no grievance that the Tribunal did not provide such an opportunity. In the present case, no such request was made by the appellant before the Tribunal that it wants to adduce any evidence to support the order of dismissal passed by the Administrative Officer. The learned Judge of the Labour Court has specifically mentioned in his order that no such request was made by the employer. When no such request was made by the appellant before the learned Judge of the Labour Court for adducing the evidence then the learned Judge of the Labour Court was justified in holding that the dismissal of the employee was invalid because the order of dismissal was pa- ssed without serving any charge-sheet or holding any enquiry. (9). When no such request was made by the appellant before the learned Judge of the Labour Court for adducing the evidence then the learned Judge of the Labour Court was justified in holding that the dismissal of the employee was invalid because the order of dismissal was pa- ssed without serving any charge-sheet or holding any enquiry. (9). In the Cooper Engineering Ltd. vs. P.P. Mundhe (4), it has been observed by the Honble Supreme Court in Para No. 22 of the judgment that ``when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication, the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic en- quiry 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. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue. (10). If the appellant wanted to justify the order of the termination of the services of Guljari Lal by adducing any evidence before the Labour Court then it should have moved an application before the Labour Court for the production of the additional documents or for adducing the evidence. No such application was moved by the appellant before the Labour Court for adducing any evidence to substantiate the order of dismissal. The learned Judge of the Labour Court was, therefore, justified in setting aside the order passed by the appellant by holding that the order has been passed without serving any charge-sheet and without holding any enquiry against the employee. The learned Single Judge, also, dismissed the writ petition, filed by the appellant-petitioner on the ground that the order of termination was not preceded by the departmental enquiry, as is required under the Rules and, therefore, it stands vitiated. We see no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Award passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court and they do not require any interference. (11). We see no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Award passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court and they do not require any interference. (11). In the result, we do not find any merit in this special appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.