ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner, who is the management of Bhalgora Area of M/s. BCCL, has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad dated 13.6.2000 in Reference Case No. 98/94 whereby the award has been answered in favour of the respondent- workmen and further prayed for quashing the order dated 22.11.1995 passed by the Tribunal whereby it was held that the domestic enquiry could have been conducted by an officer of the Company as enquiry officer and not by any other officer. 2. The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass. 3. In 1986 the petitioner Management had formulated scheme and guidelines for appointment of the candidates belonging to the scheduled tribe and scheduled caste and accordingly different areas of company submitted their list of suitable candidates. A panel of 319 names of such selected candidates belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe was prepared for providing employment to Bhalgora Area. In the said panel names of the concerned workmen were not included. The case of the management is that the concerned workmen, in connivance with the dealing Assistant and Personnel Manager and by practising fraud, were recruited in Bhalgora Area. Later on when the fraud was detected the Personnel Manager and the Dealing Assistant were removed from the services and charge-sheets were issued to the concerned workmen. Departmental enquiry was set up and one Shri S.L. Keshwani was appointed as enquiry officer. On the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer the concerned workmen were removed from the services on the charges of fraud, cheating etc. Thereafter the Union raised an industrial dispute which ended in failure. Ultimately the following dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication :-- "Whether the action of the management of Bhalgora Area of M/s. BCCL. P.O. Jharia. Dist. Dhanbad in dismissing/terminating the services of Shri Ram Praveeh Paswan and 37 other workmen (as per list enclosed) w.e.f. 13/20.4.1993 and not allowing them in service of the company is justified? If not, to what relief these workmen are entitled to? "Corrigendum of even No. dated 17/24.2.1997 received as follows : The name of workmen at Sl. No. 3 is Shri Jagu Das, Name at Sl. If not, to what relief these workmen are entitled to? "Corrigendum of even No. dated 17/24.2.1997 received as follows : The name of workmen at Sl. No. 3 is Shri Jagu Das, Name at Sl. No. 23 corrected as Binod Das, and name at Sl. No. 26 corrected as Hamesh Rohldas." 4. The petitioners case is that in the domestic enquiry all the concerned workmen participated and all opportunities were allowed to the concerned workmen as available under the principle of natural Justice. However, the Union raised objection before the Tribunal with regard to the validity of the departmental enquiry and the enquiry report on the ground that the enquiry officer conducting the enquiry was not competent to conduct the enquiry as his appointment was contrary to the provisions of Certified Standing Orders applicable in the case of the concerned workmen. It appears that the Tribunal accordingly framed a preliminary issue as to whether the enquiry officer was competent to conduct the enquiry or not. The Tribunal vide order dated 22.11.1995 held that the departmental enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer was vitiated as the enquiry officer was not competent to hold the enquiry and the enquiry report was bad in law. The Tribunal by order dated 10.10.1996 allowed the management to adduce evidence. Against the said order the sponsoring Union filed CWJC No. 2430/97(R) before this Court. It appears that the reference case remained pending before the Tribunal and a petition was flied on behalf of the management making a prayer to allow the management to adduce evidence to establish charges against the respective workmen. The learned Tribunal, however, passed the award on 13.6.2000 answering the reference in favour of the workmen. 5. Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, assailed the impugned award as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel firstly submitted that the Tribunal has committed serious error of law in holding that the management was not at all interested in contesting the reference case as the petitioner had not prayed for before the tribunal to allow it to adduce evidence to sustain the charges under the enquiry. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has further committed error of law in not allowing the petitioner to adduce oral evidence in support of the conclusion of the domestic enquiry to the extent that the concerned workmen procured employment in the company by practising fraud. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has further committed error of law in not allowing the petitioner to adduce oral evidence in support of the conclusion of the domestic enquiry to the extent that the concerned workmen procured employment in the company by practising fraud. According to the learned counsel, the entire award is, therefore, vitiated in law. In this connection, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. A.B. Zodge and Anr. (1996) 4 SCC 374 and Rajendra Jha v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad, 1984 LIC 1583. 6. On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Mazum-dar, learned counsel appearing for the concerned workmen, submitted that the Tribunal decided the fairness of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary Issue and held that the domestic enquiry was vitiated in law but the management, thereafter, did not make a prayer for allowing it to adduce evidence. Learned counsel submitted that for about 4 years the management did not take any step for adducing evidence and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the Tribunal had no option but to pass an award on the basis of material available on record. In this connection, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh, (1972) 1 LLJ 180 and Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Thejvir Singh (1972) 1 LLJ 201 . 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court by order dated 7.2.2001 called for the record of the reference case from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Dhanbad. From perusal of the order-sheet of the reference case, it appears that the Tribunal decided the preliminary issue on 22.11.1995 and held that the domestic enquiry was against the rules and thus vitiated and improper. By the said order, the management was allowed to adduce a fresh evidence and the reference case was adjourned to 4.3.1996 for recording further evidence. The order-sheet dated 4.3.1996 and subsequent order shows that ho order could be passed on these dates for the reason that the post of Presiding Officer was vacant. On 10.10.1996 the Tribunal heard both the parties and ordered the management to adduce evidence on the next date. The order-sheet dated 4.3.1996 and subsequent order shows that ho order could be passed on these dates for the reason that the post of Presiding Officer was vacant. On 10.10.1996 the Tribunal heard both the parties and ordered the management to adduce evidence on the next date. On 6.5.1997 the Tribunal passed the following order :-- "For Employer : Shri S.V. Sinha, Advocate For workmen : None, Shri Sinha is present with his witness but none is present for the workmen hence the case is adjourned to 30.6.1997." 8. On 14.6.1999 one Mr. D. Mukherjee. Advocate appeared and filed letter of authority for the workmen. On 22.7.1999 Sri Mukherjee appearing for the workmen, raised objection before the Tribunal that since the management has not taken any plea in its written statement that by filing a separate petition the management may be allowed to adduce evidence, the management now cannot be allowed to adduce evidence. The Tribunal adjourned the case for hearing on this preliminary issue. It appears that in order to avoid any technical objection a petition was filed on behalf of the management on the next date i.e. on 2.8.1999 making a prayer to allow the management to adduce evidence. Surprisingly, without deciding the preliminary objection raised by the concerned workmen and without recording the evidence on behalf of the management the Tribunal passed the impugned award on 12.6.2000. The Tribunal, in paragraph 5 of the award, observed :-- "Thus, from the principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case it is crystal clear that the management relied upon the domestic enquiry and if the management has not made any alternative prayer to allow to adduce fresh evidence in case domestic enquiry, is held to be vitiated then the Tribunal has to consider only the domestic enquiry and if it is found vitiated then the Tribunal will not allow the employer to adduce any further evidence. In the present case the employer has not made any alternative plea in the written statement nor has filed any application to allow it to lead evidence in case domestic enquiry is held to be invalid. Even after the orders were passed holding the domestic enquiry to be vitiated ab initio, the management slept over the matter for more than three and half years. Even after the orders were passed holding the domestic enquiry to be vitiated ab initio, the management slept over the matter for more than three and half years. Therefore, in such circumstances the only course left for the Tribunal is to pass an award on the basis of material available on record." 9. From perusal of the order-sheets of the reference case referred to hereinabove, prima facie it appears that the Tribunal has committed serious error of record by holding that the management did not take any step for seeking permission of the Court to adduce evidence. 10. As noticed above, the Tribunal while deciding the preliminary issue itself allowed the management to adduce evidence. Not only that on 6.5.1997 the management and his witness was present in court but the case was adjourned as none was present on behalf of the workmen. After 6.5.1997 the reference case was placed before the Tribunal on 30.6.1997 and 18.8.1997 but the case was adjourned on the ground of time petition filed by the workmen. After 18.8.1997 the record of reference case was placed before the Tribunal only on 27.5.1999 and the Tribunal issued notice to the management since the case was fixed for adducing evidence. Thereafter on 22.7.1999 when the record of reference case was placed before the Tribunal a preliminary objection was raised by the workmen that the management cannot be allowed to lead evidence, as noticed above, without deciding the preliminary objection and without giving opportunity to the management to adduce evidence the Tribunal passed the award in favour of the workmen merely on the ground that after the domestic enquiry was held improper there was no evidence on the record to show that the charges have been proved. In such circumstances, I am of the definite view that the decisions relied upon by Mr. R.S. Mazumdar is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. In the case of Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court while considering a similar question took notice of the earlier decisions and held as under :-- "7. A domestic enquiry may be vitiated either for non- compliance of rules of natural Justice or for perversity. Disciplinary action taken on the basis of a vitiated enquiry does not stand on a better footing than a disciplinary action with no enquiry. A domestic enquiry may be vitiated either for non- compliance of rules of natural Justice or for perversity. Disciplinary action taken on the basis of a vitiated enquiry does not stand on a better footing than a disciplinary action with no enquiry. The right of the employer to adduce evidence in both the situations is well recognised. In this connection, reference may be made to the decisions of this Court in Workmen v. Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd., (1965) 2 LLJ 162 : AIR 1965 SC 1803 . State Bank of India v. R.K. Jain. (1972) 4 SCC 304 : (1971) 2 LLJ 599 , Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Slngh, (1972) 1 SCC 595 : (1972) 1 LLJ 80 and Fireston Typore Co. case (1973) 1 SCC 813 : 1973 SCC (L & S) 341 : (1973) 3 SCR 587 . The stage at which the employer should ask for permission to adduce additional evidence to justify the disciplinary action on merits was Indicated by this Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills case. In Shankar Chakravarti case (1979) 3 SCC 371 : 1979 SCC (L & S) 279 : (1979) 3 SCR 1165 , the contention that in every, case of disciplinary action coming before the Tribunal, the Tribunal as a matter of law must frame preliminary issue and proceed to see the validity or otherwise of the en-quiry and then serve a fresh notice on the employer by calling him to adduce further evidence to sustain the charges, if the employer chooses to do so, by reiving on the decision of this Court in the case of Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P. Mundhe. (1975) 2 SCC 661 : 1975 SCC (L & S) 443 : (1975) 2 LLJ 379 , has not been accepted. The view expressed in Delhi Cloth Mill case that before the proceedings are closed, an opportunity to adduce evidence would be given if a suitable request for such opportunity is made by the employer to the Tribunal, has been reiterated in Shankar Chakravarti case after observing that on the question as to the stage as to when leave to adduce further evidence is to be sought for, the decision of this Court in Cooper Engineering Ltd. has not overruled the decision of this Court in Delhi Cloth Mill case. There is no dispute In the present case that before the closure of the proceedings before the Tribunal, prayer was made by the employer to lead evidence in support of the impugned order of dismissal. Hence, denial of the opportunity to the employer to lead evidence before the Tribunal in support of the order of dismissal cannot be justified." 12. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is perverse in law and cannot be sustained." The Impugned award is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the reference afresh in accordance with Jaw after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. The Management shall appear before the Tribunal within thirty days from today alongwith the list of witnesses and the Tribunal shall fix a specific date of recording evidence of the management and after closure of the evidences of the management and the workmen, if any, the Tribunal shall dispose of the reference expeditiously. 13. This writ application is accordingly allowed. 14. Writ application allowed.