Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya,J. 1. The Management of M/s.Turbo Energy Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Management), which has unsuccessfully challenged the Award dated 2. 2008 in I.D.No.165 of 2004, has preferred this Writ Appeal against the order dated 211. 2008 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.10349 of 2008. .2. By the aforesaid preliminary Award, the Labour Court, Vellore held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the second respondent-workman was not fair and proper and directed the Management to prove the charges by letting in evidence before the Labour Court. 3. The learned single Judge, having noticed that there is allegation of obtaining signature in blank papers by the enquiry officer and as admittedly, the copies of the number of Management Exhibits, such as Exs.M-11 to M-14, were not furnished to the workman, held that the Labour Court was justified in giving a finding that the enquiry was not fair and proper and the learned single Judge affirmed the Award of the Labour Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Management submitted that non-submission of those documents to the workman, had not caused any prejudice to him. He relied on the proceedings of the enquiry officer to show that the copies of those Exhibits were shown to the workman for perusal, who read and understood the contents. According to the learned counsel for the Management, the workman, having not requested to cross-examine the authors of the reports/Exhibits, no prejudice was caused to him and that the Labour Court failed to consider the aforesaid aspect and merely gave a finding that the copies of the Exhibits were not supplied. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of "Debotosh Pal Choudhary vs. PNB" reported in 2002 (3) LLJ 1082, in the case of "O.P.Mann vs. Director of Edn. (Basic)" reported in 2006 (4) LLN 678 and in the case of "Haryana Financial Corpn. vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja" reported in 2008 (9) SCC 31 . In those judgments, the Supreme Court held that till it is shown that non-supply of documents has caused prejudice to the employee, no violation of the principles of natural justice can be alleged and non-supply of documents can become fatal only if it has caused prejudice to the person concerned. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the Management and perused the records. .6. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the Management and perused the records. .6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the reports made by certain persons were shown as Exs.M-11 to M-14, namely Mr.M.Ranganathan (Ex.M-10), Mr.M.Pandiarajan (Ex.M-11), Mr.Anantharaman (Ex.M-12), Mr.Narasiman (Ex.M-13) and Mr.P.Ramasamy (Ex.M-14). In these reports, it was shown that complaints were received that the second respondent-charge-workman was needlessly disturbing the co-workers while they were working. It has not been disputed on behalf of the Management that the copies of those reports were not supplied to the charge-workman, nor the Management informed the workman that it was not possible to submit the reports, and therefore, to contact a particular Department for perusal of the reports (Exs.M-11 to M-14). In the absence of any such offer given by the Management, it cannot be accepted as gospel truth that the enquiry officer, of his own, writes that the documents were perused and the workman read and understood the same. There is no evidence on record to show that the workman has signed at any place in the enquiry before the enquiry officer stating that he read and understood the contents of Exs.M-11 to M-14. 7. In this context, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Shri Kashinath Dikshita vs. Union of India and others" reported in 1986 (2) LLJ 468 . That was a case of dismissal of a Government servant after departmental enquiry. The Supreme Court, having noticed failure to furnish copies of relevant documents and statement of witnesses and that the examination of 38 witnesses and 118 documents were running to hundreds of pages, held that the employee had been denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the order of dismissal is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 8. In the present case, it will be evident that the Management relied on four reports submitted by four different persons, i.e. Exs.M-11 to M-14. Even if it is presumed that such reports were shown on a particular date, it cannot be accepted that the workman will go through the same and would have immediately understood those four reports on that particular day of enquiry and will be in a position to defend himself in the enquiry properly. Even if it is presumed that such reports were shown on a particular date, it cannot be accepted that the workman will go through the same and would have immediately understood those four reports on that particular day of enquiry and will be in a position to defend himself in the enquiry properly. We are of the view that the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court rightly came to a definite conclusion that the workman was prejudiced by not supplying the copies of the reports, which were shown as Exs.M-11 to M-14, as affirmed by the learned single Judge. 9. In this Writ Appeal, as we find that the Labour Court has merely declared by the preliminary Award that the enquiry was not proper and directed the Management to produce all the evidence to prove the charges, it requires no interference by this Court. 10. There being no merits, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.