( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order, dated April 8, 2002, in W. P. No. 25978/1998 of a learned single Judge, whereby the award, dated 23/04/1993, passed by the industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, visakhapatnam, in ID. No. 158/1990, was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the labour Court for the purpose of affording an opportunity to both parties to let in evidence, inasmuch as the enquiry was vitiated, with a direction to the Labour Court to dispose of the case in accordance with law within a period of three months. ( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the case is in a narrow compass and almost all the facts are not in dispute. Therefore, a brief resume of the facts is delineated as follows, and the parties are referred to in this appeal as they are arrayed in the writ petition. Petitioner was working as a Conductor in the A. P. State Road Transport corporation, Kakinada. On 31/03/1992 while he was discharging his duties on kotur-Kakinada route, he was found to have committed certain serious irregularities and therefore was kept under suspension with effect from 13/04/1992. A charge-sheet was issued in response to which petitioner submitted his explanation which was found unacceptable. Therefore, a regular departmental enquiry was initiated. The Chief Inspector conducted enquiry by following the principles of natural justice and submitted his report. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain why he should not be removed from service. Petitioner submitted his reply which, according to the 1st respondent, was unconvincing. The petitioner was removed from service with effect from 20/09/1982. Petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed. The review petition filed by him was also of no avail. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Labour Court by filing ID. No. 158/1990. The Labour Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the ID as against which the petitioner filed the writ petition before this court. The learned single Judge remitted the matter back to the Labour Court with the directions as aforesaid. Assailing the same, the a. P. S. R. T. C. came up with this writ appeal. ( 3 ) LEARNED Standing counsel for the a. P. S. R. T. C. , Mr. KHarinath, contended that after observing the principles of natural justice the services of the petitioner were removed. Assailing the same, the a. P. S. R. T. C. came up with this writ appeal. ( 3 ) LEARNED Standing counsel for the a. P. S. R. T. C. , Mr. KHarinath, contended that after observing the principles of natural justice the services of the petitioner were removed. In view of the proviso to Section 11-A of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the act ), the Labour Court shall rely only on the material on record and shall not take any fresh evidence, and, therefore, the impugned order allowing the parties to let in evidence is illegal. He also contended that there was no challenge before the Labour Court that the principles of natural justice were not followed while conducting the domestic enquiry, and it is for the first time such contention was raised in the writ petition after lapse of five years, and, therefore, the impugned order should be set aside at least on the ground of laches on the part of this petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. G vidyasagar, vehemently contended that it is the bounden duty of the Labour Court to give a finding that the enquiry under challenge before it has been conducted after following the principles of natural justice, whether or not such contention is raised by the delinquent. Since the Labour Court has not given such finding in this case, the award is vitiated. Both counsel relied upon some decisions which shall be referred to at appropriate places. They stated that the impugned order has to be set aside in view of the fact that there is no Provision in law for remanding the matter by High Court to the Labour Court for the purpose of affording opportunity to the parties to let in evidence. They stated that the impugned order has to be set aside in view of the fact that there is no Provision in law for remanding the matter by High Court to the Labour Court for the purpose of affording opportunity to the parties to let in evidence. ( 4 ) SECTION 11-A of the Act reads as follows:"where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court, Tribunal or national Tribunal, as the case may be is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct re-instatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require: provided that in any proceeding under this section the Labour Court, Tribunal or national Tribunal, as the case may be, shall rely only on the materials on record and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter. " ( 5 ) THE above provision makes it clear that the Labour Court has been conferred with the power to set aside an order of discharge or dismissal if it is satisfied that the order is not justified. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision in Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 295 : 1962-II-LLJ-498 wherein the Apex Court has held at p. 501 of LLJ as follows:"it has also been held that if it appears that the departmental enquiry held by the employer is not fair in the sense that proper charge had not been served on the employee or proper or full opportunity had not been given to the employee to meet the charge, or the enquiry has been affected by other grave irregularities vitiating it, then the position would be that the Tribunal would be entitled to deal with the merits of the dispute as to the dismissal of the employee for itself. The same result follows if no enquiry has been held at all. The same result follows if no enquiry has been held at all. In other words, where the Tribunal is dealing with a dispute relating to the dismissal of an industrial employee, if it is satisfied that no enquiry has been held or the enquiry which has been held is not proper or fair or that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse, the whole issue is at large before the Tribunal. This position is also well-settled" ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down above that if an enquiry is not conducted in a fair and proper manner or the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. ( 8 ) IN Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Ludh Budh Singh, AIR 1972 SC 1031 : 1972 (1) SCC 595 : 1972-I-LLJ-180, it has been held that the Tribunal derives jurisdiction to deal with the merits of a dispute only if it is held that the domestic enquiry has not been held properly, but the two stages in which the tribunal has to conduct enquiry are in the same proceedings which relate to the consideration of the dispute regarding the validity of the action taken by the management, and, therefore, if the management wants to avail itself of the right, that it has in law, of adducing additional evidence, it has either to adduce evidence simultaneously with its reliance on the domestic enquiry or should ask the Tribunal to consider the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue with a request to grant permission to adduce evidence, if the decision of preliminary issue is against the management. From this decision, it is clear that the Tribunal can deal with the report of the domestic enquiry in the first instance as a preliminary issue, so as to find out whether the enquiry proceedings have been held properly or not. ( 9 ) IN Workmen of Firestone Tyre and rubber Co. From this decision, it is clear that the Tribunal can deal with the report of the domestic enquiry in the first instance as a preliminary issue, so as to find out whether the enquiry proceedings have been held properly or not. ( 9 ) IN Workmen of Firestone Tyre and rubber Co. v. Management, AIR 1973 SC 1227 : 1973 (1) SCC 813 : 1973-I-LLJ- 278, it has been held as follows at p. 303 of LLJ:"we have already expressed our view regarding the interpretation of Section 11-A. We have held that the previous law, according to the decisions of this Court, in cases where a proper domestic enquiry had been held, was that the Tribunal bad no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of misconduct except under certain circumstances. The position further was that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment imposed by an employer both in cases where the misconduct is established in a proper domestic enquiry as also in cases where the tribunal finds such misconduct proved on the basis of evidence adduced before it. These limitations on the powers of the tribunal were recognized by this Court mainly on the basis that the power to take disciplinary action and impose punishment was part of the managerial functions. That means that the law, as laid down by this court over a period of years, had recognised certain managerial rights in an employer. We have pointed out that this position has now been changed by Section 11-A. The section has the effect of altering the law by abridging the rights of the employer inasmuch as it gives power to the Tribunal for the first time to differ both on a finding of misconduct arrived at by an employer as well as the punishment imposed by him. . . . " ( 10 ) IN Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P. P. Mundhe, AIR 1975 SC 1900 : 1975 (2) SCC 661 : 1975-II-LLJ-379, it has been held by the apex Court as follows at p. 385 of LLJ:" 19. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer, there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the Labour Court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue. We should also make it clear that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication. " ( 11 ) ON the basis of the above decision, it has been contended that regardless of the fact that whether or not the employee raised the contention that the principles of natural justice were not followed while conducting enquiry, it is mandatory for the Labour Court to decide that issue first. ( 12 ) LEARNED standing counsel relied upon a decision in Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding officer, Labour Court, AIR 1999 SC 698 : 1999 (1) SCC 517 : 1999-I-LLJ-275, in which it has been held that in all cases where enquiry has not been held or the enquiry has been found to be defective, the Tribunal can call upon the management or the employer to justify the action taken against the workman and to show by fresh evidence, that the termination or dismissal order was proper. ( 13 ) IN A. N. Pandu v. Management, bhel, 1998-III-LLJ (Suppl)-842 (AP-DB), it has been held as follows:". . . . . ( 13 ) IN A. N. Pandu v. Management, bhel, 1998-III-LLJ (Suppl)-842 (AP-DB), it has been held as follows:". . . . . THE only course open for us would be to direct the Labour Court to consider whether the domestic enquiry was properly held and if it was found to be held properly, the order of punishment should be affirmed; if the enquiry was not proper, the employer and the employee have to be given an opportunity to examine their witnesses; thereupon the Labour Court considering the entire evidence on record find whether the order of punishment was justified or not. " ( 14 ) AS seen from the award, only two points were determined - (1) whether the charges against the delinquent are proved, and (2) whether the punishment imposed on the delinquent is justified. No finding has been given that the Enquiry Officer observed the principles of natural justice in a fair and impartial- manner. The petitioner did not raise that question before the Tribunal. For the first time he raised it in the writ petition. Yet, is it permissible for the petitioner to raise the said contention for the first time in the writ petition before this Court, is the question to be decided. ( 15 ) FROM an analysis of the above decisions, it is clear that when an enquiry itself is found to be defective or is not fair and proper, or when the employee complains that the principles of natural justice have not been followed, or when the matter is in controversy between the parties as regards the validity of the enquiry, then the Labour Court must decide the issue whether the enquiry has been conducted properly or not as a preliminary issue. In this case, the petitioner did not allege in his petition before the Labour Court that the principles of natural justice were not followed or that the enquiry was defective or the enquiry was conducted in breach of any conduct rules applicable to him. In the absence of such pleading, in our considered opinion, the tribunal is not bound to decide the question suo motu as a preliminary issue whether the enquiry, has been conducted after observing all the formalities and the principles of natural justice. In Ritz Theatre (supra), it was specifically contended by the employee therein that the department enquiry was unfair, unjust and inequitable. In Ritz Theatre (supra), it was specifically contended by the employee therein that the department enquiry was unfair, unjust and inequitable. In DC and G. Mills (supra) also the workman therein contested that the enquiry was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were perverse and suffered from basic errors of fact. In Cooper engineering (supra) top it was contended that the enquiry was defective. Therefore, in such circumstances, it has been held that when the matter is in controversy between the parties, the question as to whether the enquiry has been properly and fairly conducted or not has to be decided as a preliminary issue. In the instant case, the petitioner did not plead before the labour Court that the principles of natural justice were not followed and therefore no issue in that respect was framed. Yet, the Tribunal having applied its mind has held, "the enquiry officer observed the principles of natural justice in a fair and impartial manner giving reasonable opportunity to the workman to defend his case. The delinquent examined one witness as defence witness. After conducting enquiry, the enquiry officer found the workman guilty of the charges and submitted his report, dated 19/08/1982. The management after going through the material on record issued a show- cause notice of removal to the delinquent and the same was served on 3/09/1982. The delinquent submitted his explanation on 10/09/1982 for the said show-cause notice. The Depot manager after considering all the material papers removed the petitioner from the service as per his proceedings, dated 20/09/1982. " Thus, the Labour Court impliedly considered and came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and the punishment imposed upon the delinquent was justified in the circumstances of the case. It is also pertinent to note that even in the writ petition, except baldly alleging that the salient principles governing the enquiry were lost sight of, nothing has been stated as to what were those salient principles which were not observed and how they were not followed. It is also pertinent to note that even in the writ petition, except baldly alleging that the salient principles governing the enquiry were lost sight of, nothing has been stated as to what were those salient principles which were not observed and how they were not followed. As the petitioner did not raise any controversy with regard to the manner of the conduct of the enquiry or about the breach of any of the principles of natural justice, he cannot be permitted to say in the writ petition that the Tribunal has to consider as a preliminary issue whether the departmental enquiry was conducted properly or not. Had he raised such contention before the Tribunal, then certainly the Tribunal was duty bound to decide that issue. Having not done so, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise that issue for the first time in the writ petition. ( 16 ) LEARNED standing counsel contended that there was delay in approaching the Labour court and the laches on the part of the petitioner cannot be condoned. ( 17 ) THE charge-sheet was served on the delinquent on 13/04/1982. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 19/08/1982. Show-cause notice was issued on septembers, 1982. On Sept 10/09/1982 the petitioner submitted his explanation. He was removed from service with effect from 20/09/1982. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed on 13/12/1982 and the review was rejected on 7/02/1983. Therefore, he did not raise his little finger till 31/07/1990 on which date he filed the I. D. before the Labour Court. The Labour Court affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority on 23/04/1993. Five years thereafter, the petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 1998. ( 18 ) IN Balbir Singh v. Punjab Roadways, 2001-I-LLJ-476 (SC), it has been held as follows at p. 477:"6. . . . . Whether relief to the workman should be denied on the ground of delay or it should be appropriately moulded is at the discretion of the Tribunal depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt the discretion is to be exercised judiciously. . . . . " ( 19 ) FROM the above decision it is clear that discretion is given to the Tribunal whether the relief to a workman should be denied on the ground of delay or it should be appropriately moulded. No doubt the discretion is to be exercised judiciously. . . . . " ( 19 ) FROM the above decision it is clear that discretion is given to the Tribunal whether the relief to a workman should be denied on the ground of delay or it should be appropriately moulded. Having considered the aspect of delay, the Tribunal has dealt with the matter in its discretion. Therefore, it may not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal. The tribunal gave a finding that individual kept quite for long seven years after the dismissal of the review petition, and came to the conclusion that the I. D. was filed only to take a chance. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal exercised its discretion judiciously. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the said finding. ( 20 ) IN view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It was not the case of the parties in the writ petition that the matter should be remitted back to the Labour Court for adducing evidence. ( 21 ) IN the result, we set aside the impugned order. The writ appeal is allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.