Judgment : AR. LAKSHMANAN, J..- 1. This writ appeal arises out of an order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 18.1.1996 made in W.P.No.13004 of 1985. The said Writ Petition filed by the first respondent herein was allowed and the matter was remitted to the management to enclose the enquiry report to the delinquent workman along with the proposed punishment and to take a decision afresh. Aggrieved against the said order the management has come forward with this writ appeal. 2. Certain charges were framed against the first respondent/workman. The main portion of the charge sheet is extracted below: “1. On 31.3.1981 at about 5.00 P.M. you were instructed by your superior Mr.D.George, Assistant Supdt. to work overtime for 3 hours for winding a starter of 15 H.P. Motor required urgently, which you refused to obey stating that you will not undertake that work unless you were given 5 hours overtime; 2. On31.3.1981 at about 5.15 P.M. you shouted at Mr.F.D.Gonsalvez, Clock No.918 and abused him in vulgar language saying "TAMIL" 3. On 2.4.1981, at about 7.45 a.m. you went to Mr.George and shouted at him making intimidating gestures saying, "TAMIL" 4. On 2.4.1981, at about 7.45 a.m. you again abused Mr.F.D.Gonsalvez saying (sic), 5. On 2.4.1981 at about 9.45 a.m. you tampered with and damaged the starter of 15 HP. Motor which was kept inside the oven in the department.” An enquiry was commenced on 14.4.1981 and concluded on 22.4.1981. Five witnesses were examined on behalf of the management in support of the charge. The first respondent/workman examined himself on his side. The enquiry officer submitted a report that all the charges stand amply proved. The show cause notice was issued on 18th May, 1981 to the first respondent herein proposing to dismiss him from service. He was called upon to submit his representation, if any, within a week from the date of receipt of the said communication. The first respondent submitted a very detailed representation on 25.5.1981 and also filed another representation dated 31.5.1981. By proceedings dated 10.6.1981, the Works Manager, confirmed the punishment of dismissal and dismissed him from service with immediate effect. Along with the said proceedings, a copy of the findings of the enquiry officer, dated 30.4.1981 was enclosed. 3. The workman thereupon raised a claim before the II Addl. Labour Court, Madras. By proceedings dated 10.6.1981, the Works Manager, confirmed the punishment of dismissal and dismissed him from service with immediate effect. Along with the said proceedings, a copy of the findings of the enquiry officer, dated 30.4.1981 was enclosed. 3. The workman thereupon raised a claim before the II Addl. Labour Court, Madras. The Government of Tamil Nadu by G.O.Ms.No.2707, dated 2.12.1981 have referred the following issue for adjudication by the Labour Court: “Whether the non-employment of Thiru.V.Muthukrishnan is justified, if not to what relief he is entitlede To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms of money if it can be so computed.” 4. It is statedin the claim petition that the charges are false and foisted and that the enquiry officer acted as a Prosecutor with the determination to hold the petitioner guilty of me charges. The findings of the en- quiry officer are totally perverse and baseless. By a preliminary order dated 3.4.1986, the II Addl.Labour Court, Madras held that the enquiry was fairly and properly conducted and the Labour Court also held that it is not open to the workman to traverse beyond the pleading and that he can raise the plea in view of the general contention that the entire enquiry was only a farce, he cannot succeed upon the said ground because M. W. 1 has stated in his evidence that as and when the witness deposed in English he explained it to the petitioner. It is also seen from Ex.M-9 the enquiry proceedings that the petitioner has effectively cross-examined the witnesses. As regards the objection that he was not permitted to be assisted by a co-worker at the enquiry, the Labour Court held that there is nothing beyond the versionof W.W.1 the concerned workman that he made a request and it was declined and when Ex.M-9 disproves the said version, there is no scope to record any adverse finding against the management on the said point and in that view, the said ground also was rejected. The third ground of attack before the Labour Court was with reference to the failure to furnish copy of the enquiry proceedings with the second show cause notice. The Labour Court held that there is no provision in Ex.M-19 the Standing Orders of the company requiring a second show cause notice to be given. The third ground of attack before the Labour Court was with reference to the failure to furnish copy of the enquiry proceedings with the second show cause notice. The Labour Court held that there is no provision in Ex.M-19 the Standing Orders of the company requiring a second show cause notice to be given. While so, if inspite of the absence of any provision in the Standing Orders, the management had given a second show cause notice, it is superfluous. Therefore, the Labour Court held that the failure on the part of the management to furnish copy of the enquiry findings will have no consequence at all and the enquiry will not be vitiated on that score. The Labour Court, as a matter of fact, found that the first respondent has given a detailed explanation marked as Ex.M-12 for the show cause notice Ex.M-11 and another supplementary explanation marked as Ex.M-13. The Labour Court on a careful consideration of the materials on record was inclined to hold that the domestic enquiry is in no way vitiated and it has been fairly and properly conducted. Therefore, the point was answered in the affirmative in favour of the management. 5. A final award was passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Madras in I.D.No.566 of 1981 on 22.12.1984. The point for determination before the Labour Court was that whether the punishment imposed on the workman is a deterrent one and whether the same is liable to be modified. Thus, this was the only question that arose for consideration in the said Industrial Dispute, before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, on an elaborate consideration of the entire materials placed before it and also on a reference to the decisions cited before it, came to the conclusion that there is no merits in the contention of the counsel for the workman and that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the workman is in consonance with the gravity of the charges and therefore, it is not shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him, as alleged by the workman. The Labour Court also held that since the charges have been proved beyond doubt, there is no warrant for interference with regard to the punishment by invoking the provisions of Sec.11-A of the I.D.Act. The Labour Court also held that since the charges have been proved beyond doubt, there is no warrant for interference with regard to the punishment by invoking the provisions of Sec.11-A of the I.D.Act. In the result, the Labour Court passed an award holding that the non-employment of the workman was justified and the workman is not entitled to an order of reinstatement or any other benefits. 6. The order of the Labour Court was challenged by the first respondent herein by filing a writ petition, to quash the award of the 2nd respondent made in I.D.No.566 of 1981 dated 22.12.1984 which was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part II Sec.2 (Supplement) dated 26.6.1985 at page 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the respondent has only raised the contention that the punishment imposed on him was shockingly disproportionate with reference to the gravity of the charge and it was also urged that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court failed to exercise his powers vested under Sec.11-A of the I.D.Act and that he ought to have interfered with the severity of the punishment. Except the above grounds no other points were raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 7. The management filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The management submitted that elaborate evidence was let in the domestic enquiry establishing the charges against the petitioner/ the first respondent herein and that once the domestic enquiry was upheld by the second respondent Labour Court, and when the counsel for the first respondent herein confined his arguments only to the propriety of the punishment, it is not open to the first respondent to raise any other point at the time of hearing in the absence of any pleading. So far as the plea about the severety of the punishment was concerned, the management submitted that the Labour Court has given elaborate reasons for his conclusion that the first respondent deserves the punishment of dismissal and therefore, the reasoning of the Labour Court cannot be said to be arbitrary or fanciful and therefore, the award is not vitiated in any manner. A further affidavit was filed in January 1996 by the first respondent herein raising totally a new plea which was not placed before the enquiry officer or before the Labour. Court stating that the findings of the enquiry proceedings were not enclosed which has greatly prejudiced his rights. It is also contended that this is contrary to the provisions of me standing orders. This contention was resisted by the management by filing a counter affidavit on 15.1.96. It is stated in the counter affidavit that when the copy of the enquiry proceedings was given to me first respondent herein at the end of each days proceedings, the question of furnishing the said proceedings with 2nd show cause notice did not arise. Even though a copy of the finding of the enquiry officer was not enclosed with the 2nd show cause notice, the first respondent did not plead any handicap while submitting his reply to the second show cause notice issued to him. In any event, along with the order of dismissal me first respondent was furnished with the copy of me findings of the enquiry officer. 8. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge of this Court on 18.1.1996. Para Nos.5 to 7 of the order runs as follows: “5. Having considered the material available on record, it is evident and it is beyond doubt that the copy of the enquiry report is not enclosed to the delinquent while sending the proposed punishment to the delinquent. Therefore, the fundamental basic that the management is bound to enclose me copy of the enquiry report along with the proposed punishment, is not carried out by the management. Simply because the management did not enclose the enquiry report along with the proposed punishment is not a ground to allow the writ petition. Therefore, I consider that it is just and proper to remand the matter to the respondent/management to enclose the enquiry report to the delinquent workman along with the proposed punishment and take a decision afresh. 6. In view of the above discussion, the enquiry findings given by the Enquiry Officer by the management is confirmed. But the capital punishment of dismissal from service which was confirmed by the Labour Court is set aside. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the management for the purpose said above. 6. In view of the above discussion, the enquiry findings given by the Enquiry Officer by the management is confirmed. But the capital punishment of dismissal from service which was confirmed by the Labour Court is set aside. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the management for the purpose said above. No costs.” The learned single Judge clearly held that the management did not enclose the enquiry report along with the proposed punishment, is not a ground to allow the writ petition. Having held so, the learned single Judge thought it fit to remit the matter to the management to enclose the enquiry report to the delinquent workman along with the proposed punishment and to take a decision afresh. In view of the above finding, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the management for the purpose mentioned above. Aggrieved by the said order, the management has preferred the above writ appeal. 9. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on either side. We have gone through the entire records and also the enquiry report, award of the Labour Court and also of the judgment of the learned single Judge. We are of the view that the learned single Judge has committed a serious error in interfering with the well considered award of the Labour Court upholding the dismissal of the workman solely on the ground that copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the workmen along with the 2nd show-cause notice. In this connection, the learned single Judge has failed to see that in reply to the second show cause notice, the first respondent herein did not make any grievance about the non-furnishing of the enquiry report. The learned single Judge also did not notice that the workman did not at any time dispute the existence of the enquiry report nor expressed any doubt its genuineness. We are of the view that the order of dismissal cannot be interferred with on the ground of non-furnishing of enquiry report unless the same had caused the workman any serious prejudice. In our view, there was no scope for any interference at all with the award of the Labour Court. We are of the view that the order of dismissal cannot be interferred with on the ground of non-furnishing of enquiry report unless the same had caused the workman any serious prejudice. In our view, there was no scope for any interference at all with the award of the Labour Court. There is no need or necessity to remit the matter to the management for fresh disposal by giving an opportunity to the workman to show cause against the findings of the enquiry officer. A Division Bench of this court consisting of Nainar Sundaram, J. (as he then was) and Bellie, J., in the decision reported in The Management of TAFE v. R. Venkataraman and others The Management of TAFE v. R. Venkataraman and others The Management of TAFE v. R. Venkataraman and others, (1990)2 L.L.J. 468 held as follows: “The well accepted principle on the question of exercise of powers under Sec.11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to evaluate the gravity of misconduct for the purpose of the punishment to be imposed on a workman is, that once that power has been exercised, this court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, in the absence of any important legal principle, should not undertake to re-examine the question of adequacy or inadequacy of the materials for interference by Labour Courts.” 10. Another Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us is a party (AR.L.J.,) in W.A.No.291 of 1996 dated 16.7.1997, following the above decision of the Division Bench held that when once the discretion is exercised judicially, by the Labour Court, this Court cannot interfere with the award unless it is proved otherwise. 11. Learned counsel for the workman cited the decision reported in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991)1 L.L.J. 29 in support of the contention that the failure to furnish copy of the report would amount to violation of the rules of natural justice. This judgment was rendered by three Hon’bleJudges of the Supreme Court on 20.11.1990 and this judgment came up for further scrutiny by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in M.D.ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar M.D.ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar M.D.ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar, (1994)1 L.L.J. 162 . This judgment was rendered by three Hon’bleJudges of the Supreme Court on 20.11.1990 and this judgment came up for further scrutiny by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in M.D.ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar M.D.ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar M.D.ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar, (1994)1 L.L.J. 162 . The said Bench held in para 31 as follows: “Hence in all cases where the Inquiry Officers report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the Courts and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the Courts/ Tribunal, and give the employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of the non-supply of the report. If after hearing the parties, the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. The Court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The courts should avoid resorting to short cuts. Since it is the Courts/Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the question and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order of punishment, (and not any internal appellate or revisional authority), there would be neither a breach of the principles of natural justice not a denial of the reasonable opportunity. It is only if the Court/Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the order of punishment. Where after following the above procedure, the Court/Tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing his with the report.” In the instant case, the learned single Judge has not discussed anything about the falsity of the award of the Labour Court. The Learned single Judge, with great respect has mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report copy was not furnished to the workman. On doing so, the learned single Judge has only resorted to short cut as observed by the Supreme Court. There is no finding by the learned single Judge that the non-furnishing of the report vitiates the enquiry report and that the workman has been put to great prejudice. The decision reported in Union of India v. Mohd, Ramzan Khan Union of India v. Mohd, Ramzan Khan Union of India v. Mohd, Ramzan Khan, (1991)1 L.L.J. 29 cited by the learned counsel for the workman has been clarified by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Secretary to Government and others v. A.C.J.Britto Secretary to Government and others v. A.C.J.Britto Secretary to Government and others v. A.C.J.Britto, (1997)2 L.L.J. 388 by holding that the Tribunal could not have nullified the order of dismissal in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case, (1991)1 L.L.J. 29 and in ECIL, Hyderabad case M.D.ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakaran M.D.ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakaran M.D.ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakaran , (1994)1 L.L.J. 162 . Itis made clear that the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case has prospective operation only. The said judgment was delivered on 20.11.1990. Whereas the order of dismissal passed by the management was on 10.6.1981. Since the law laid down in Mohd.Ramzan Khans case has only prospective effect, the said decision cited by the learned counsel, for the workman has no application to the facts of this case since the order of dismissal was made as early as in 10.6.1981. 12. For all the foregoing reasons, we are fully satisfied with the order of the Labour Court ordering dismissal of the workman from service. The said punishment, in our opinion, is not disproportionate to the gravity of the charges made against the workman and the workman in our opinion deserves such punishment and therefore, no interference with the same is called for, in our hands by invoking our jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the result, the writ appeal succeeds. However, there will be no order as to costs.