JUDGMENT 1. In this case un application under Section 15(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act as amended in West Bengal has since been challenged. Mr. Dipak Ghose, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in order to grant relief the Court has to come to a conclusion that a prima facie case exists. Unless the Court forms an opinion that there is a prima facie case, no interim order can be granted. He relied on the decision in the case of (1) P.C. Sampat v. State of West Bengal and Others reported in 1999(83) FLR 1078. Relying on the said decision, he points out that there was a divergence of opinion between the two Division Bench in the case of (2) Ganges Printing Factory Employees Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. v. 7th Industrial Tribunal and Others reported in 91 CWN 480. It was held that it is not necessary for granting interim relief to find out a prima fade case. Whereas in (3) Webel Nicco Electronics Limited v. Mrs. Anima Roy reported in 1997(76) FLR 60 (Calcutta), it was held that a prima facie case is to be made out. Mr. Ghose had pointed out from the impugned order that the Tribunal had only referred to the different submissions made by the respective parties but it has not drawn any conclusion of its own. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent workman on the other hand points out that by reason of the Special Bench, the decision in the case of Ganges Printing Factory Employees Industrial Co operative Society Ltd. (supra), was overruled out it had not gone into the details as to what will constitute primo facie case. On the other hand the decision in the case of Webel Nicco Electronics Limited, the Court had laid down as to what should constitute a prima facie case. According to him, if there are some ingredients and the Tribunal finds that prima facie case exists, in that event, it is not necessary that the case should be proved to the hilt which must succeed. Therefore, the finding on the basis of the materials on record that a prima facie case exists cannot be interfered with even if it suffers from infirmity or other irregularity. Therefore, the finding on the basis of the materials on record that a prima facie case exists cannot be interfered with even if it suffers from infirmity or other irregularity. If the Court while examining the question found from the materials provided before it that there are grounds which can lead the Tribunal to form an opinion with regard to the existence of the prima facie case, in that event, the Court while in exercise of the writ jurisdiction should not allow itself to interfere with such orders simply because the order is not explicit and unambiguous. 3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that before passing the interim order, the learned Tribunal had given opportunity to the parties to establish a prima facie case. In course of such process, the parties had adduced evidence which were considered. In the present case, the learned Tribunal finds that the Company had made out a case that there was domestic enquiry which was held ex parte. According to the Company, the workman did not participate in the enquiry. Whereas the workman had contended that the natural Justice was denied during the proceeding of the domestic enquiry and that the evidence was not properly scanned. It further appears that the learned Tribunal had applied its mind with regard to the question of gainful employment by the workman which, according to it, could not be established by the Company. The learned Tribunal had directed the Company to produce the vouchers in order to ascertain the quantum of the last pay drawn. But, the Company submitted that those having been destroyed, could not be produced. However, Mr. Ghose has not quarreled with the quantum of last pay drawn nor with the question of gainful employment by the petitioner except on the question of finding out of a prima facie case. 4. In the case of B.G. Sompat (supra) the Full Bench had held that the question of grant of interim relief is not a mechanical process. Therefore, the existence of the word "admissible" in the section means that if it is admissible, it is to be determined and determination is also an authoritative decision. Therefore, this can be decided only when a prima facie case is made out. Making out two different cases would not defeat prima facie case. Therefore, the existence of the word "admissible" in the section means that if it is admissible, it is to be determined and determination is also an authoritative decision. Therefore, this can be decided only when a prima facie case is made out. Making out two different cases would not defeat prima facie case. It has to be decided on the merit of the case having regard to the nature of the dispute taking into consideration the materials therefor. It had also relied on various decisions in order to point out that a prima facie case would mean a case which has proceeded upon sufficient proof at that stage and which would support the finding if evidence to is be adduced is believed. 5. Since the decision in Ganges Printing Factory Employees Industrial Co operative Society Ltd. (supra), has been overruled and Webel Nicco Electronics Limited (supra), has since been approved by the Full Bench having laid down that the prima facie case is to be made out, such interim order can be granted only when prima facie case is made out. Prima facie case is said to be made out, when there are certain materials before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that there is a triable issue. If, on the basis of the materials placed before the Tribunal, the allegation is made by one party and is denied by the other party, the Court is not supposed to believe one or the other if the material shows that there are sufficient materials which require the Tribunal to investigate and determine finally, then prima facie case is said to be made out. In Webel Nicco Electronics Limited, the Division Bench had laid down the factors on the basis whereof the prima facie case can be said to be found out. It had elaborately dealt with the said question in Paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the said decision. It may be beneficial to refer to those paragraphs, particularly Paragraphs 27 and 28 which are quoted below :-. "27. Secondly, requiring the Labour Court or Tribunal to be prima facie satisfied as to the merits of the dispute does not involve any delay. Interim applications may be and generally are decided on the affidavits. Therefore, the requirement for such a prima facie finding cannot run counter to the object of Section 15(2) (b) at all. 28. "27. Secondly, requiring the Labour Court or Tribunal to be prima facie satisfied as to the merits of the dispute does not involve any delay. Interim applications may be and generally are decided on the affidavits. Therefore, the requirement for such a prima facie finding cannot run counter to the object of Section 15(2) (b) at all. 28. It would also not be correct (in my judgment) to limit the word "admissible" only to the sense it is used in the law of evidence. There is nothing in the statute which requires the word to be read in such a restricted manner. The word must be given its normal meaning. The word "admissible" has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "pertinent and proper to be considered in reaching a decision". Used with reference to the issues to be decided in any judicial proceeding it would be both "pertinent and proper" to consider the merits of the case to decide whether interim relief should be granted at all or not." 6. Now let us examine the present case having regard to the above proposition. In the instant case, the Court has come to the conclusion that since the employer had contended that there was domestic enquiry ex parte and the workman had contended that natural Justice was violated, therefore, according to him, there was a prima facie case. Now it is rightly contended by Mr. Ghose that the expression used with regard to the conclusion about the existence of a prima facie case is not unambiguous or explicit. It appears that it suffers from certain obscurity. But, a decision is not to be taken simply on the basis of its face value when it comes to the question of interim order having regard to the finding of existence of a prima facie case. Since it is not necessary that a case must succeed. It is necessary that there is existence of triable issue. 7. It appears from the said order that the Tribunal had gone through the records of the case and the evidence adduced. The certified copy of the evidence of Joydeb Mukherjee has since been produced. Admittedly, one Supriya Nandy was the Enquiry Officer. It appears that in his cross-examination, the said J. Mukherjee had admitted that the said S. Nandy was the Enqu Officer and he also gave evidence on behalf of the Management. The certified copy of the evidence of Joydeb Mukherjee has since been produced. Admittedly, one Supriya Nandy was the Enquiry Officer. It appears that in his cross-examination, the said J. Mukherjee had admitted that the said S. Nandy was the Enqu Officer and he also gave evidence on behalf of the Management. If it is so, in that event the said S. Nandy having been an Enquiry Officer, natural Justice has been violated since one cannot be a Judge in his own cause. Thus, from the materials it appears that there is something to form an opinion about the existence of a prima facie case. Even if in the order. it is not so conspicuously spelt out. It seems that the Tribunal had considered such evidence and having regard to such evidence, it has come to the conclusion about the existence of a prima facie case. 8. The writ Court sitting in revision is not supposed to scrutinise each and every defect in the order. Even if it is not very clear and explicit, still then it has to be found out as to whether there are materials on record to support such finding. Such finding is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with lightly in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. It can be interfered with only if it is perverse. Even if, on the basis of the materials on record, this revisional Court is of different view, still then it cannot be interfered with the same if there are materials to take one or the other view on the basis thereof. 9. In the present case, the finding, though unhappy, may not be such to be perverse since on the basis of the materials that has been produced before this Court, it appears that there was sufficient reason to hold that there is prima facie case, particularly in the evidence of J. Mukherjee which was considered immediately before the conclusion about the existence of a prima facie case, which may not ............... be even explicitly pointed out. But, still then it would serve no purpose to send this matter again for decision afresh. Inasmuch as that will be only an empty formality. be even explicitly pointed out. But, still then it would serve no purpose to send this matter again for decision afresh. Inasmuch as that will be only an empty formality. In case this matter is sent for reconsideration about the existence of a prima facie case, in that event, the Court will simply add one or two lines by referring to the said evidence of J. Mukherjee as has been enumerated in the cross-examination. 10. Then again the question of validity or genuineness of the said materials cannot be decided at this stage when prima facie case is to be found out and it is only when there are materials which may establish the issue, then a prima facie case is said to be made out. 11. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. This writ petition, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Let the xerox copy of the certified copy produced by the workman be kept on record. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given.