JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as petitioner Corporation) challenging the award dated 20th April, 1991 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner whereby the learned Judge set aside the order of termination of the second respondent Shri Surendra Pal Garg dated 21.6.84 and directed to reinstate him with 75% back wages. 2. The second respondent was appointed as conductor by order dated 14.9.83. His appointment was temporary on daily rate basis with the condition inter alia that he would issue tickets to the passengers and would not permit ticket less travelling, necessary entries would be made in the way bill and he shall issue tickets to all the passengers before the vehicle moves out from the bus stand of the Corporation. It was also specifically stipulated that if he is found involved in corrupt practice, his services will liable to be terminated. It is alleged that on 10.4.84 he was found carrying a child passenger without ticket from whom he has realised the amount but has not issued ticket. The respondent was advised not to indulge in such activities. It is further alleged that on 21.6.84 he was caught carrying 71/2 ticket less passengers and 360 Kg. luggage at Bahadurgarh (Haryana) on route Delhi-Hanumangarh Ganganagar, as result thereof, the Corporation suffered a loss of Rs. 1189.90. The way-bill was seized and checking report was also prepared. Accordingly, in terms of letter of appointment, his services were terminated on the same day. The respondent raised industrial dispute which was referred to labour court, Bikaner. 3. The labour court found that order of termination was illegal for the reason that no inquiry was conducted before holding him guilty of misconduct. The court also found that the respondent workman has worked for more than 240 days and as such it was incumbent on the Corporation to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court found the order of termination in violation of Provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. With respect to the back wages in the opinion of the learned Judge as there was delay in raising the industrial dispute, as such the workman was not entitled to the full back wages. He accordingly, directed to deduct 25% of the wages. With respect to the back wages in the opinion of the learned Judge as there was delay in raising the industrial dispute, as such the workman was not entitled to the full back wages. He accordingly, directed to deduct 25% of the wages. 4. It is contended by Mr. B.S. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation that at the first instance, no inquiry was required to be conducted as second respondent was engaged temporarily on daily wages basis. As per the terms of appointment on permitting ticketless travelling in the bus of the Corporation, his services were liable to be terminated without notice. In alternate, it is submitted that even if it is held, the inquiry was necessary. The labour court could have given an opportunity to the Corporation to adduce the evidence with respect to the misconduct. On the other hand, Mr. Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Surendra Pal Garg has supported the judgment of the labour court. It is submitted that as the respondent workman had worked for more than 240 days, his services could not have been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. It is further submitted that as the services of the petitioner were terminated without proper enquiry, it was obviously a case of retrenchment. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. It is not in dispute that no inquiry of whatsoever nature was conducted by the petitioner Corporation with respect to the misconduct of the respondent. In such circumstances, it was open for the petitioner corporation to ask the labour court to adduce the evidence with respect to the misconduct of the second respondent. It is contended by Mr. Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation, that even if the Corporation had not asked to adduce the evidence, it was for the labour court to satisfy itself about the misconduct of the concerned workman. Learned counsel in support of the contention has placed reliance on the decision of the Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Management and Ors. reported in AIR 1973 SC 1227 . Learned counsel in support of the contention has placed reliance on the decision of the Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Management and Ors. reported in AIR 1973 SC 1227 . My attention has been invited to sub-para 4 of para 27 of the judgment, which reads as follows : "Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or if the enquiry held by him is found to be 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 contra." The Apex Court has very clearly held that in order to satisfy the legality and validity of the order, the labour court or the Industrial Tribunal must give an opportunity to the employer and employee to adduce the evidence before it. Learned counsel Mr. Singhal has invited my attention to Clause 8 of Para 27 wherein the court has laid down that where the employer who wants to avail himself of the opportunity of adducing evidence for the first time before the tribunal to justify his action, should ask for it at the appropriate stage. If such an opportunity is asked for, the Tribunal should not refuse. The conjoint reading of sub-para 4 and sub-para 8 shows that if the employer asks for a permission to adduce the evidence, it should be permitted. But even if such a prayer has not been made, in order to satisfy the legality and validity of the order of dismissal or discharge, the court will ask the respective parties to 3: adduce the evidence of misconduct. 6. In the instant case, no such opportunity has been given by the labour court to the petitioner Corporation. Thus, it is expedient that the matter be remitted to the labour court with a direction to permit the Corporation to lead the evidence with respect to the misconduct of the second respondent. Obviously when the Corporation has been directed to adduce the evidence, the workman will be entitled to adduce the evidence. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. Obviously when the Corporation has been directed to adduce the evidence, the workman will be entitled to adduce the evidence. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. Award of the labour court, Bikaner dated 20th April, 1991 is quashed and set-aside. It is pointed out that now the jurisdiction with respect of the cases of Bikaner is vested with the labour court, Sri Ganganagar. In view of this, this matter is send back to the labour court, Sri Ganganagar with a direction that the learned Judge will permit the petitioner Corporation to adduce the evidence to prove misconduct on the part of the second respondent Surendra Pal Garg. The respondent will also be given opportunity to defend himself and adduce the evidence. The party shall appear before the labour court, Sri Ganganagar on 20th January, 2000. The labour court will decide the reference within the period of six months from 20th January, 2000. The notification of the State Govt. accordingly stands modified.Writ Petition allowed. *******