Judgment :- Koshy, J Appellant in this writ appeal filed the original petition challenging the award of the Labour Court, Calamine. D.No. 45 of 1987. Appellant charge sheeted third respondent on the allegation that he has committed misappropriation and falsification of accounts and has manhandled another workman. Based upon the charge-sheet an' enquiry was conducted and he was found guilty. An industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court. After considering the pleadings and evidence the Labour Court found that enquiry was not held properly. Since the management did not seek permission Co adduce further evidence to substantiate the charge framed against the workman in the written statement tiled by them or subsequently within a reasonable time, Labour Court found that they are not entitled to adduce any further evidence against the workman, Labour Court directed the management to reinstate the workmen with hack wages. The above award was challenged before this Court in O.P. No. 9864 of 1991 and the only contention pressed before this Court was that an opportunity ought to have given to the management to adduce evidence before the Labour Court to prove the misconduct. Learned Single Judge based upon various decisions of the Supreme Court held that since no request has been made by the petitioner in the written statement filed before the Labour Court seeking permission to adduce evidence to prove the charges, the Labour Court was right in denying that opportunity. It was held that no error has been committed by the Labour Court in refusing an opportunity to the management to adduce evidence. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this writ appeal. 2. In he writ appeal it was contended that the Supreme Court in Rajendra v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1984 (Supp) SCC 520) held that eventhough application for permission to adduce further evidence is not made in the pleadings or in the written statement, Labour Court has got power to permit the management to adduce evidence before the Court and therefore the Labour Court should have allowed the petitioner to adduce evidence to prove the misconduct. It was also contended that no preliminary order was passed setting aside the enquiry. So as to enable the management to request the Labour Court for permission to adduce fresh evidence before the Court. 3. The Supreme Court in Shatikiir Chakrayarli. v. Rritanira Biscuit Co. Lid. (AIR 1979 SC 1652); in Delhi. It was also contended that no preliminary order was passed setting aside the enquiry. So as to enable the management to request the Labour Court for permission to adduce fresh evidence before the Court. 3. The Supreme Court in Shatikiir Chakrayarli. v. Rritanira Biscuit Co. Lid. (AIR 1979 SC 1652); in Delhi. Clolh ami General Mills Co. v. LtiJh Biulh Singh (1972-1 LIJ 180) and in Shambhu Nalh v. Bank of Baroda (AIR 1984 SC 289) held that request of the employer to allow them to adduce fresh evidence should be made at the earliest opportunity. In Shankar Chakravarthi's case the Supreme Court held that a quasi-judicial Tribunal is under no obligation to acquaint parties before it about their rights. The rights which the employer has, must be availed by the employer by making proper request at the time it Tiles statement before the Court. If no request is made during the proceedings there is no duly in law to the Labour Court to give an opportunity to the employer to adduce fresh evidence. Labour Court need not. call for the parties to adduce evidence. The Supreme Court held dial to avail the right to adduce fresh evidence before the Labour Court they have to request the Labour Court to make a preliminary finding regarding validity of the enquiry and to adduce evidence if enquiry is found to be not proper. However, such request should be made at the earliest opportunity. In Shambhu Math's case the Supreme Court had that if the management chooses to exercise its right to adduce further evidence to substantiate the charges it must make up its mind at the earliest stage and file an application for that purpose without any unreasonable delay. 4. The decision of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Jha's case was pressed by the appellant to contend that even oral application is enough. A reading of the above decision would show that the norms prescribed in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh and in Shankar Chakravani v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. were accepted in the above case. In Rajendra Jha's case Supreme Court found that it is doubtful whether the norms prescribed in the two decisions were followed strictly i n the above case. v. Ludh Budh Singh and in Shankar Chakravani v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. were accepted in the above case. In Rajendra Jha's case Supreme Court found that it is doubtful whether the norms prescribed in the two decisions were followed strictly i n the above case. However, the Supreme Court found that the order passed by the Labour Court allowing the employers to lead evidence had been accepted and acted upon by the appellant. Since the Labour Court eventhough acted irregularly it has jurisdiction to accept such petitions. It was distinguished from the cases in which the Court inherently lacks the jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding or to pass a particular order. Since Labour Court has got power to accept such petitions, Supreme Court did not interfere with the procedure adopted. But the Supreme court reiterated that it is for the employer to file such applications at the earliest opportunity. It is well settled law that application for permission to adduce fresh evidence should contain in the pleadings itself (written statement) and if it is not stated, such petition should be filed at the earliest opportunity and the Labour Court has to consider such petitions on merits, In this case, admittedly, no such petition was filed before the Labour Court to decide the validity of the enquiry. No petition was filed even towards the end of the proceedings for allowing the petitioner to adduce fresh evidence. The case law regarding opportunity to adduce further evidence was discussed by a Bench decision of this Court in Co-operative. Sugars Ltd, v. Cooperative S.C. Employees Association (1995(2) KLT 481). We are in respectful agreement with the same. Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not confer an absolute right on the employer to make an application at any time of the proceedings and it has to he made at the earliest opportunity. When such an application is filed it is for the Labour Court to decide whether it is raised at the earliest opportunity or whether the delay is explained or whether such application in filed only to delay the proceedings. In this case it is clear that no such application has been filed. Even if such a request was made during the time of arguments the Labour Court is not bound to accept the same. In this case it is clear that no such application has been filed. Even if such a request was made during the time of arguments the Labour Court is not bound to accept the same. The appellant never requested for a preliminary finding regarding validity of the enquiry nor requested the Labour Court to allow them to adduce fresh evidence before the Labour Court. In such a circumstance the award of the Labour Court cannot be interfered with on that ground, and we agree with the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.