ORDER R. Gururajan, J.—This petition is filed by the management-LIC of India challenging the order passed on IA-I in C.R. No. 100 of 1999 dated 6.9.2005, Annexure-'A'. 2. The Respondent -Chandrashekar was an employee of LIC of India (for short 'the LIC'). He was working as an Higher Grade Assistant in the cash department. Noticing certain irregularities in the matter of cash transaction, proceeding were initiated by way of charge-sheet dated 17.6.1994 by LIC. Reply was obtained. Enquiry was conducted. Show-cause notice was issued to the workman. Thereafter, he was terminated from the services. He filed a Writ Petition in this Court. This Court rejected the petition. Thereafter, he moved the conciliation machinery, Government of India and ultimately, the Government of India referred a dispute to the Central Labour Court in C.R. No. 100/1999. Parties entered appearance. Statements were filed. The Tribunal framed a preliminary issue with regard to validity of the enquiry. After hearing, the Tribunal passed an order on 25.4.2005 holding that the enquiry held by LIC is not fair and proper. Annexure-'E' is the order. Thereafter, an application was filed seeking an opportunity to lead evidence on merits for the first time in terms of an IA. After hearing the IA for leading evidence, it is rejected. This order is challenged. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. He argues that the material facts warrant my interference in this case. He says that the non-availability of a plea in the matter of leading evidence on merits does not by itself render the Court powerless. He says that the Court has necessary power and jurisdiction to permit leading evidence. He strongly relies on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Divyash Pandit v. Management, NCCBM in (2005) 2 SCC 684 and the Judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 7876 of 2005. 4. After hearing, I have carefully perused the material on record. 5. From the material on record, it is seen that the Labour Court has chosen to pass an order on 25.4.2005, after considering the material on record with regard to validity of domestic enquiry. The Labour Court has ruled that the enquiry is not fair and proper. That order has become final. No challenge was made to that order. 5. From the material on record, it is seen that the Labour Court has chosen to pass an order on 25.4.2005, after considering the material on record with regard to validity of domestic enquiry. The Labour Court has ruled that the enquiry is not fair and proper. That order has become final. No challenge was made to that order. Thereafter, an application was filed on 6.6.2005 seeking permission to lead evidence for the first time before the Tribunal in the matter of justification of the order of dismissal. An affidavit was filed along with the application. The learned Judge, after hearing has chosen to reject the same. 6. Let me see as to whether the said order is proper and legal. It is seen from the affidavit that the Petitioner has not chosen to provide any acceptable reasons as to why the said plea seeking for evidence on merits is not made in the statement. On the other hand, the affidavit only deals with the enquiry which has been set aside by the Labour Court. Law is fairly well settled in this regard. Courts have consistently ruled that the plea ought to have been made for leading evidence before the Labour Court in the event of an adverse enquiry order in the statement. Admittedly, in the case on hand, no plea as such is made in the counter statement. It is only after an adverse enquiry order, an application has been made. 7. In the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal, the Supreme Court has ruled that if the management chooses to exercise its right it must make up its mind at the earliest stage and file an application for that purpose without any delay. It is only after an adverse enquiry order, an application has been made. 7. In the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal, the Supreme Court has ruled that if the management chooses to exercise its right it must make up its mind at the earliest stage and file an application for that purpose without any delay. But when the question arises under Section 10 of the Act, after the workman had been punished pursuant to a finding of guilt recorded against him in the domestic enquiry, there is no question of the management filing any application for permission to lead further evidence in support of the charge or charges framed against the workman, for the defect in the domestic enquiry is pointed out by the workman in his written claim statement filed in the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal after the reference had been received and the management has the opportunity to look into the statement before it filed its written statement of defence in the enquiry before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal and could make the request for the opportunity in the written statement itself. If it does not choose to do so at that stage it cannot be allowed to do it at any later stage of the proceedings by filing any application for the purpose which may result in delay which may lead to wrecking the morale of the workman and compel him to surrender which he may not otherwise do. The said Judgment is approved by a Constitution Bench in Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Smt. Lakshmidevamma and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2090 . 8. This Court in 1992 Lab IC 1870, has ruled as under: Where a dispute was referred to labour Court about dismissal of workman on the ground of misconduct and the employer applied to the above Court for adducing evidence to support charge of misconduct not at an earlier stage but after the domestic enquiry was held to be unfair and improper and the matter was posted for evidence and arguments of the workman's advocate were heard on merit, refusal to allow the application of the employer is justified? 9. In the light of these decisions, the Tribunal is fully justified in rejecting the request of the management, in the absence of any plea before the adverse order in these proceedings. 9. In the light of these decisions, the Tribunal is fully justified in rejecting the request of the management, in the absence of any plea before the adverse order in these proceedings. The Tribunal cannot said to have committed any error, what so ever. 10. However, the learned Counsel relies on a latest Judgment of the Supreme Court in (2005) 2 SCC 684 (Divyash Pandit v. Management, NCCBM). It is no doubt true that in the said case, the Court has ruled that the Respondent may not have made any prayer for additional evidence in its written statement but, as held by this Court in K.S.R.T.C v. Laxmidevamma this did not place a fetter on the powers of the Court/Tribunal to require or permit parties to lead additional evidence including production of document at any stage of proceedings before they are concluded. It is to be noticed that in the said Judgment, there were earlier proceedings and a Writ Petition was filed challenging the earlier award. Writ Petition was allowed and the award was set aside. The High Court was of the view that the Labour Court should adjudicate all the issues afresh. Matter was accordingly remanded back to the Labour Court to consider all the issues afresh. The Labour Court however, refused to consider issue No. 4. The management made an application for clarification before the High Court and the High Court clarified that it had in fact directed all the four issues to be redecided and also directed the Labour Court to give only one opportunity to the management to lead evidence on issue No. 4. It was in this context, the Apex Court has ruled that an opportunity has to be provided to lead evidence in the matter. The said Judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts. 11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on an order in W.P. No. 7876 of 2005. I have perused the order. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7876 of 2005 dated 21.7.2005 has noticed the Apex Court Judgment in Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Smt. Lakshmidevamma and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2090 . 11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies on an order in W.P. No. 7876 of 2005. I have perused the order. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7876 of 2005 dated 21.7.2005 has noticed the Apex Court Judgment in Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Smt. Lakshmidevamma and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2090 . After noticing the findings in para 45, the learned Judge has ruled that in a case where the management has not reserved a right to lead independent evidence in the written statement and if the preliminary issue regarding the validity of domestic enquiry held to be not fair and proper, still the Court has the power to permit the management to adduce evidence, if in the facts and circumstances of the case the Court feels so, in the interest of justice. 12. In the light of this Judgment, I have seen the application filed by the LIC. There is absolutely no reasons given seeking an extra-ordinary permission in the matter of leading evidence despite no plea in the statement. The said Judgment in the absence of any acceptable reasons in the application is not available to the Petitioner. 13. Before concluding, I deem it proper to observe that the Petitioner is a huge Corporation having an army of officers. It is understandable to me as to why this grave error of 'no pleading' has been committed despite the clear pronouncement of law by the Apex Court several years ago. It is rather unfortunate that a Public Corporation has to suffer an adverse order on account of no plea in the matter. I express my displeasure the way in which this case is treated by the Corporation. A little amount of care on the part of the Petitioner could have solved an embarrassing situation to LIC. It is hoped that atleast in future a Public Corporation like LIC would take suitable steps in safeguarding its internal discipline in finance matters by way of appropriate pleadings in the interest of public money. 14. No grounds. Petition stands rejected. No costs.