Judgment :- (Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of certiorari, as stated therein.) The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records relating to the award made in ID.No.417/2001 passed by the 1st respondent-Tribunal dated 11.4.2001 and 25.4.2001 and to quash the same. 2. It is the case of the petitioner-workman that he entered the service of the 2nd respondent-management in the year 1971 as an unskilled worker. Later he was transferred from Mines to the Auto Garage Section as Mazdoor. It is also stated by him that he was involved in trade union activities of Salem District Pattali Thozhil Sangam and fighting for the cause of the co-workers in day-to-day problems with the management. While so, the 2nd respondent-management introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the Company and the workers were coerced by all means to accept the same. This is the method adopted by the 2nd respondent to reduce the strength of the workforce. The workers were agitated. Consequently, some of the workers working in various gangs were suspended on 16.3.1994 on the alleged charges of poor performance. It is stated by the petitioner that along with the other Trade Union representatives, he met the 2nd respondent and expressed resentment of the action taken against en-masse suspension. Consequently, the petitioner was served with the order of suspension dated 16.3.1994 on the false ground that he abused the company officials. Not having satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer, a show cause notice dated 18.4.1994 was issued and finally, he was served with an order of dismissal dated 20.6.1994. 3. According to the petitioner, the appeal preferred on 4.7.1994 against the said order of dismissal was also rejected on 9.7.1994 by the appellate authority. Consequently, the writ petitioner filed a claim statement before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai for adjudication of the dispute against the said order of dismissal and the same was taken on file in I.D.No.1/1997 by the 1st Tribunal herein. Consequently, the writ petitioner filed a claim statement before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai for adjudication of the dispute against the said order of dismissal and the same was taken on file in I.D.No.1/1997 by the 1st Tribunal herein. According to the petitioner, the enquiry was not properly conducted and no adequate opportunity was given to him to examine one of the main witnesses, namely, K.A.Siddhan, who was alleged to have been with the petitioner and known the full facts. It is also stated that though the claim statement and the counter statement were filed before the 1st respondent-Labour Court, it is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent, without applying its mind and the principles of law, passed the impugned award, holding that the action of the 2nd respondent-management in dismissing the petitioner was just, proper and legal and consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to get any relief. Challenging the said award, the writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was absolutely no opportunity given to the petitioner to put forth his case before the 2nd respondent-management. He further urged that one person, named Siddhan was not allowed to be examined to substantiate his case of non-involvement to negative the charges of abusing his officials. It is also stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner was not given subsistence allowance. It is his further submission that the disciplinary authority was the Manager, Mines and the enquiry officer was the Deputy Manager, who was subordinate to the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the enquiry was only a farce of an enquiry and it was not conducted in a manner known to law. Learned counsel has also stated that the enquiry report was not forwarded to him as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also stated by the counsel that it was only to victimise the petitioner for his union activities, the petitioner has been chosen and he was illegally dismissed. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was too severe and not proportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioner. This aspect has not been gone into by the 1st respondent. Further, the charge sheet would not attract the ingredients of clauses 21(7) and 21(10) of the Standing Orders of the 2nd respondent. It is further stated that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was too severe and not proportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioner. This aspect has not been gone into by the 1st respondent. Further, the charge sheet would not attract the ingredients of clauses 21(7) and 21(10) of the Standing Orders of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is charge-sheeted for the disorderly behaviour, using abusive language and threatening the officials. But, according to the petitioner, the charge-sheet which led to suspension was to the following effect:- Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the contents of the charge-sheet would not certainly attract the ingredients of clause 21(7) and 21(10) of the Standing Orders. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though there were number of persons involved in the charges, the petitioner was singled out and being victimised for the reason that he was associated with the union activities. 5. In the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the decision reported in M.D. ECIL., Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, 1994(1)LLJ 162, wherein it has been held that non-furnishing of the report of the enquiry officer would violate the principles of natural justice. 6. Referring to some of the findings and observations of the 1st respondent-Tribunal in the impugned award, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there was total non-application of mind on the part of the 1st respondent and the order of termination of the petitioner passed by the 2nd respondent has been confirmed on the basis of the past record of the petitioner about which, the petitioner was not put on notice at all. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the decision reported in Engine Valves Ltd. v. L.C., Madras & anr., 1991(1) L.L.J. 372 at page 383, wherein it is stated that the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 will have to be strictly followed by the Labour Court. In the present case, the 1st respondent- Tribunal has not followed the said established principles and therefore according to him the award is bad. 8. Finally, on the basis of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned award and sought for remanding the matter to the 1st respondent-Tribunal for fresh disposal. 9. In the present case, the 1st respondent- Tribunal has not followed the said established principles and therefore according to him the award is bad. 8. Finally, on the basis of the foregoing submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned award and sought for remanding the matter to the 1st respondent-Tribunal for fresh disposal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-management has referred to the counter filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent and submitted that the petitioner interfered and misbehaved with the Mines Manager and abused him. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension and charge sheet dated 16.3.1994 under clause 21(7)and 21(10) of the Standing Orders of the 2nd respondent was issued to the petitioner. Since the explanation offered by the petitioner was not satisfactory, an enquiry was ordered to probe into the charge levelled against the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner participated in the enquiry which took place between 21.3.1994 and 7.4.1994. According to the 2nd respondent, the domestic enquiry was held strictly in accordance with the principles of natural justice and there was no violation of any kind as alleged. According to the learned counsel, it cannot be stated that the petitioner was not given opportunity to examine the witnesses he wanted. In support of his submission, learned counsel has drawn my attention to the impugned award, wherein the petitioner was allowed to examine four witnesses of his choice. After having given such opportunity to the petitioner, it is stated by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the petitioner cannot have any grievance that one more witness on his side was not examined. 10. With regard to the next contention that the petitioner was not paid subsistence allowance, it is stated by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the petitioner did not claim the same at any point of time during the enquiry so as to state that for non-payment of subsistence allowance, the petitioner was prejudiced. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that after analysing all the materials available before the 1st respondent-Tribunal, the 1st respondent has dealt with the matter elaborately and passed the impugned award confirming the order of dismissal of the petitioner passed by the 2nd respondent-management. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that after analysing all the materials available before the 1st respondent-Tribunal, the 1st respondent has dealt with the matter elaborately and passed the impugned award confirming the order of dismissal of the petitioner passed by the 2nd respondent-management. So also, for non-furnishing of the report of the findings of the enquiry officer, it is stated by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that as long as the prejudice caused is not proved by the petitioner, he cannot have any grievance for non-furnishing of the same. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has also stated that the details of the past record are all the ones given in the personal file of the delinquent-petitioner which has been marked as Ex.No.(8) in the enquiry proceedings and only on that basis, the 1st respondent-tribunal has taken the said decision. 11. Therefore, there is no need to give an opportunity to the petitioner more than what has been given to prove the charge, since these are all the details given in the personal file of the petitioner himself. Moreover, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has stated that for the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 18.4.1994, the petitioner has expressed his regret for the alleged incident took place. Therefore, according to him, in the light of the clear admission made by the petitioner he cannot be said to have aggrieved against the order of punishment. 12. As regards the contention of victimisation, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-management has stated that mere allegation of victimisation of the petitioner would not be sufficient and there must be materials to substantiate the said allegation. In the present case, excepting to assert that the action of the 2nd respondent-management in terminating the petitioner amounts to victimisation, there is no other material produced in support of the said contention. 13. Regarding the issue of disproportionate punishment given to the petitioner, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-management reiterated that the petitioner should not be permitted to instigate the other employees so as to disturb the normal functioning and the harmony that prevailed among the employees. 13. Regarding the issue of disproportionate punishment given to the petitioner, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-management reiterated that the petitioner should not be permitted to instigate the other employees so as to disturb the normal functioning and the harmony that prevailed among the employees. Moreover, from the nature of the charge levelled against the petitioner and a reading of the charge-memo, would clearly show that the petitioner has not only abused the higher officials but also threatened them that they would be beaten up. 14. With all the above submissions, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-management concluded that the punishment is proportionate to the nature of charge and consequently prayed for upholding the preliminary award as well as the final award passed by the 1st respondent-Industrial Tribunal. 15. On a perusal of the records produced and the submissions made by both the learned counsel, I am of the view that the award of the 1st respondent does not meet the requirements of law. The predominant submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry report finding the charges held against the petitioner are proved has not been furnished to the petitioner to make representations against such award passed in the enquiry. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 1994(1)L.L.J. 162 (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held in paragraph 30, as follows:- "(iv) In the view that we have taken, viz., that the right to make representation to the disciplinary authority against the findings recorded in the inquiry report is an integral part of the opportunity of defence against the charges and is a breach of principles of natural justice to deny the said right, it is only appropriate that the law laid down in Mohd.Ramzan Khan's case (supra) should apply to employees in all establishments whether Government or non-Government, public or private. This will be the case whether there are rules governing the disciplinary proceeding or not and whether they expressly prohibit the furnishing of the copy of the report or are silent on the subject. Whatever the nature of punishment, further, whenever the rules require an inquiry to be held, for inflicting the punishment in question, the delinquent employee should have the benefit of the report of the Inquiry Officer before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges levelled against him. Whatever the nature of punishment, further, whenever the rules require an inquiry to be held, for inflicting the punishment in question, the delinquent employee should have the benefit of the report of the Inquiry Officer before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges levelled against him. Hence question (iv)is answered accordingly." 16. In the very same decision, in paragraph 31 it has been held as follows:- "31. Hence in all cases where the Inquiry Officer's report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the Courts and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the Courts/Tribunal, and give employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of the non-supply of the report. If after hearing the parties, the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. The Court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The Courts should avoid resorting to shortcuts. Since it is the Courts/Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the question and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order of punishment, (and not any internal appellate or revisional authority), there would be neither a breach of the principles of natural justice nor a denial of the reasonable opportunity. It is only if the Court/Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the order of punishment. ...." 17. It is also seen that when the 2nd respondent-management gave the notice dated 18.4.1994 proposing the punishment of dismissal, no enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner along with this notice. The counter filed by the 2nd respondent does not specifically deny that the said report was given before imposing the punishment. Whereas there is a passing reference in the counter to the effect that the non-furnishing of the report has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. 18. The counter filed by the 2nd respondent does not specifically deny that the said report was given before imposing the punishment. Whereas there is a passing reference in the counter to the effect that the non-furnishing of the report has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. 18. It is further seen that when the point was specifically urged before the 1st respondent-tribunal, the tribunal has brushed aside the same in paragraph 8 of the award and stated as follows:- "8. Yet another contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that enquiry is vitiated in not providing the findings of the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner. This contention cannot be accepted as correct in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in a case reported as 1994 I LLJ 162. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the enquiry will not be vitiated due to the non- furnishing of the findings of the Enquiry Officer to the delinquent employee and the prejudice caused will have to be proved. Here, in this case the petitioner has not proved causing of any prejudice to him in this regard." 19. In my view this reasoning given by the 1st respondent-tribunal is in total contravention to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited supra. It is very essential that a delinquent employee should always be given the copy of the enquiry report to give his objections. Only on getting the same, the disciplinary authority should proceed further. When enquiry report is not furnished and punishment is imposed on the basis of the enquiry report, the Tribunal should cause a copy of the report to be furnished to the employee and to give an opportunity to show how his case was prejudiced because of non-furnishing of the report. Only after hearing the parties the Tribunal can come to the conclusion that it would have made no difference to the ultimate punishment given. 20. Admittedly this was not followed in this case by the 1st respondent-tribunal. Instead, the Tribunal on a wrong reading of the decision cited supra held that the petitioner has not proved causing of any prejudice without giving him an opportunity. 21. Considering the above, I am of the view that the impugned award passed by the 1st respondent-tribunal is not sustainable and that the same need to be interfered with. Instead, the Tribunal on a wrong reading of the decision cited supra held that the petitioner has not proved causing of any prejudice without giving him an opportunity. 21. Considering the above, I am of the view that the impugned award passed by the 1st respondent-tribunal is not sustainable and that the same need to be interfered with. Consequently, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent-tribunal for fresh consideration from the stage of furnishing a copy of the enquiry report, if not given earlier, to enable the petitioner to show cause how he was prejudiced because of the non-furnishing of the enquiry report. It is further directed that the 1st respondent-tribunal shall take up the enquiry as stated above and complete the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. There is no order as to costs.