This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 4 of 1994, which arose in the following circumstances. 2. The Management of the Numaligarh Tea Estate made physical verification of the food grains stock on 30.9.92 in presence of the concerned workman, Stores Clerk and it was revealed that there was shortfall of about 7,333 Kgs of rice and 3,875 Kgs of Atta. According to the Management, the shortfall was duly acknowledged by the workman, Stores Clerk. The food grains stock of the godown was handled by the concerned workman Stores Clerk along with the Head Godown Clerk to the exclusion of other workmen. On detecting the shortfall, explanations were asked from the concerned workman, Stores Clerk. The explanation was not found satisfactory whereupon the authorities proceeded with framing of formal charge against the workman. The workman submitted explanation and denied the charge, the Management proceeded with the domestic enquiry and the workman was allowed to be defended by his lawyer. The Head Godown Clerk was also simultaneously charged by the Management. A common enquiry was held in respect of both the employees, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report whereby the Head Godown Clerk was absolved of the charge and found the charge framed against the workman as fully established. The Management agreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and dismissed the workman from service. An industrial dispute was raised by the State Govt at the instance of Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha, which espoused the cause of the workman. The State Govt by notification No.GLR. 199/93/17 dated 16.2.94, referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The workman has pleaded before the Inquiry Officer that the allegation of the shortage of food grains was absurd. It was asserted that there was no foolproof system for control of supply and stocking of the food grains and there was no round the clock security guard. That there was no report of any theft of such a huge quantity of food grains; nor was any report of such theft lodged before the police. That the stock of food grains are sometimes received by the workman, sometimes by the Head Godown Clerk, the Welfare Officer or even by the executive officers of the tea garden. That there was no report of any theft of such a huge quantity of food grains; nor was any report of such theft lodged before the police. That the stock of food grains are sometimes received by the workman, sometimes by the Head Godown Clerk, the Welfare Officer or even by the executive officers of the tea garden. It was further stated that the keys of godown remain with the staff only during the working hours and then those are sent to the Manager's bungalow after the working hours. That the workman was never the custodian of the food grains's stock and therefore; he could not be held solely responsible for maintenance of the stock. 3. Before the Labour Court, both the Management as well as the workman adduced evidence on the fairness of the enquiry as also on merits. The Management examined the Inquiry Officer in addition to the Audit and Accounts Officer who was present during the physical verification and also the Manager of the tea estate. The workman also examined himself before the Labour Court. The learned Labour Court by the impugned Award dated 9.12.97, rejected the enquiry report and answered the issue No.l in the negative and against the Management. The learned Labour Court also held that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits. In addition, the learned Labour Court held that the Management was not justified in forfeiting the gratuity of the workman which as such was illegal. Hence this petition. 4. Mr. SN Sarma. learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Management, submitted that the learned Labour Court fell into serious error in outright rejecting the domestic enquiry without considering the same in its proper perspective. Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel submitted that assuming but not admitting the domestic enquiry to be improper, even in that case also, the learned Labour Court ought to have considered the merits of the Management's case since the Management in the instant case, led evidence on merits. Mr. SN Sarma, learned senior counsel submitted that the learned Labour Court reached its conclusion on assumptions and presumptions overlooking the materials on record. 5. Mrs A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman, submitted that the Labour Court has fairly adjudicated the matter and reached its own conclusion which cannot be said to be absurd or perverse. Mr. SN Sarma, learned senior counsel submitted that the learned Labour Court reached its conclusion on assumptions and presumptions overlooking the materials on record. 5. Mrs A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman, submitted that the Labour Court has fairly adjudicated the matter and reached its own conclusion which cannot be said to be absurd or perverse. That conclusion of facts based on evidence as well as sufficiency of evidence is not be gone into by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. Admittedly, when there was evidence on record which was lawfully accepted by the learned Labour Court, this Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is normally to accept the same in the absence of good reason so as to enable the Court to reach its conclusion. 6. The subject matter of adjudication that was referred to the Labour Court emanated from a disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Management against the alleged misconduct of the workman. A managerial enquiry was conducted and on conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted its report. A managerial enquiry is not like a suit, but is only a fact finding mechanism to ascertain the truth by affording opportunities to the workman. The charge of misconduct that is alleged against the workman is to be enquired into by giving the workman all possible opportunities to defend himself. At no stage, any grievance was made about the fairness of the procedures/proceeding adopted by the Management. The learned Labour Court, however, found fault with the findings of the domestic enquiry. 7. The Labour Court was not sitting as an appellate authority over the finding of the Inquiry Officer. The function of a Labour Court is to look into the fact as to whether the enquiry was fairly conducted by giving opportunity to the workman and in- a situation where the Labour Court finds fault with the enquiry, it has to further look as to whether the findings reached in the enquiry, were based on materials on record. Where domestic enquiry is found to be defective or improper, it is to be equated with that of a case of .a no enquiry. Even in that situation also, the employer would be within its right to justify its action on merit. Where domestic enquiry is found to be defective or improper, it is to be equated with that of a case of .a no enquiry. Even in that situation also, the employer would be within its right to justify its action on merit. Be that as it may, when there was evidence on merit, the Labour Court was required to decide the case on merit as if no enquiry was held. For whatever reason it may be, when the Labour Court finds that the enquiry was defective, in that case also, adjudication process will not come to an end in a case when the parties led evidence. The Management examined the Manager of the tea estate as well as the Audit and Accounts Officer to prove the shortfall in Rice as well as Atta from the godown. The Labour Court while adjudicating the industrial dispute, is required to deal with the respective cases of the parties and arrive at its own conclusion. In that area, the Presiding Officer is to come to his own conclusion on the basis of the materials on record. In a reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal is required to adjudicate the issues referred to it. Section 7 of the Act confers the power on the Industrial Tribunals/Labour Courts for adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the 2nd or 3rd Schedule to the Act and for performing such other functions as referred thereunder. 8. Adjudication involves determination of disputes between the parties on evaluation of the competing claims on appraisal of the facts led by the parties followed a decision which finally disposes the controversy. The exercise involves finding of facts as laid down in the materials on record on application of the relevant law. An adjudication process, be that administrative or otherwise, is not to contain the mere conclusions but also the reasonings on which the conclusions are reached. For the purpose of this proceeding, even if it be assumed that the enquiry was not proper, the Labour Court was required to fairly address itself to the respective evidence adduced by the parties and the pleadings. 9. For the purpose of this proceeding, even if it be assumed that the enquiry was not proper, the Labour Court was required to fairly address itself to the respective evidence adduced by the parties and the pleadings. 9. Mrs A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the workman, submitted that the Labour Court on its own is authorised to deal with matters pertaining to industrial peace/disputes and, therefore, the distinction between Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court is higher than that between other statutory fora and, therefore, technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedures cannot trammel the exercise of jurisdiction by such Courts/Tribunals since the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 itself created a new set of rights for bringing industrial peace. The Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are no doubt conferred with wide discretion. But wider the discretion, greater is the responsibility of such institution . 10. Any decision to be acceptable, must contain reasons. An industrial adjudication is to be passed on the pleadings and the evidence made available to the Tribunal/Court. It cannot fly off the tangent and reach its own conclusion. Fairness demands atleast consideration of the respective evidence adduced by the parties. Unfortunately, in this case, the learned Labour Court did not address itself to c the evidence of the Management. The case as indicated above, was regarding the shortage of some articles from the godown of the tea estate. The Labour Court was to consider the evidence adduced regarding the shortfall vis-a-vis the evidence adduced by the workman on the basis of the materials on record. The learned Labour Court also did not address its mind as to whether the non-production of the Leave Register at all affected the decision making process of the Labour Court for arriving at a decision regarding the issues involved. The real issue before the Labour Court was as to whether the workman concerned was entrusted with the articles and was responsible for the shortage thereof. For that purpose, it was the function of the Labour Court to go into the respective evidence adduced by the parties and reach its own conclusion which, unfortunately it failed to do. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Award dated 9.12.97, passed in Ref Case No. 4 of 1994 cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. For that purpose, it was the function of the Labour Court to go into the respective evidence adduced by the parties and reach its own conclusion which, unfortunately it failed to do. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Award dated 9.12.97, passed in Ref Case No. 4 of 1994 cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Labour Court at Dibrugarh to be decided on the basis of the respective evidence that were led before it. However, it would also be open for both the parties to make appropriate applications for adducing further evidence and in such an event, it would be open for the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh, to take appropriate decision on the matter. 12. The learned Labour Court shall complete the above exercise within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order as per the directions given herein above. 13. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed.