ORDER : Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. By means of the present writ petition, the impugned award dated 20.3.2013, passed by the respondent No. 1 has been challenged, which was placed on the notice board on 24.9.2013. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner establishment was engaged in manufacturing of the glass bottles and terms of the employment was governed by the standing orders applicable to the factories. The respondent workman was appointed on 7.10.1978 on the post of sorter. The allegation was that he instigated the employees and participated in strike and charge sheet was submitted. The domestic enquiry was conducted and after enquiry report he was dismissed from service by order dated 16.2.1987. The industrial dispute was raised and the matter was placed before the Conciliation Officer, When conciliation failed, the dispute was referred by the State Government u/s 4K of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 on 23.12.1991 which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 75/1993. The reference was challenged before this Court on behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 31456/93. Subsequently the same was dismissed. The State Government amended reference by deleting Universal Karmchari Sangh and in its place the name of contesting workman was substituted by order dated 7.10.2008 because it was found that Universal Karmchari Sangh who/spoused the case of the workman was no longer in existence. The written statement was filed by the parties. The issue was framed on 3.12.2008 with regard to the validity of the domestic inquiry. The application was moved on behalf of the petitioner on 19.12.2008 to decide the issue regarding validity of the domestic enquiry as preliminary issue and the application was rejected by the Labour court on 21.4.1991. Thereafter the application was filed to recall the order on 14.5.2009. Being aggrieved against that order the Writ Petition No. 47659/09 was filed on behalf of the petitioner before this Court. That writ petition was dismissed with cost on 24.5.2010 with the observation to conclude the proceeding within four months. Thereafter the impugned award was passed on 20.3.2013 with the direction to reinstate the respondent workman with full back wages. 2. Being aggrieved against that order the Writ Petition No. 47659/09 was filed on behalf of the petitioner before this Court. That writ petition was dismissed with cost on 24.5.2010 with the observation to conclude the proceeding within four months. Thereafter the impugned award was passed on 20.3.2013 with the direction to reinstate the respondent workman with full back wages. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was specific averment in para 25 of the written statement that if it was found that the domestic enquiry was not proper or that was against the principle of natural justice, then the opportunity be given to the petitioner employer to prove the charges against the respondent workman. 3. The application was also moved to decide the same as preliminary issue though the writ petition was dismissed. However, when it was decided by the Labour court that domestic enquiry was not proper or it was perverse, then the opportunity should have been given to adduce the evidence to prove the charges. He further submitted that when it was found that the enquiry report was not valid, then the entire materials adduced by the parties were required to be considered by the Labour court independently and case was not to be decided on the basis of the inquiry report. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was in employment for about nine years from 1978 to February 1987 and the impugned award was passed after about 24 years to reinstate the workman with full back wages and during this period he might have been engaged somewhere else, hence on these grounds the impugned award is illegal. He relied the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Divyash Pandit Vs. Management, N.C.C.B.M., (2005) SCC (L&S) 256. He further submitted that according to Apex Court when the Labour court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was non est then the Labour Court should have given one opportunity to the petitioner employer to establish the charges before passing the award in favour of the respondent workman, hence in view of the aforesaid the impugned award is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent workman opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that dilatory tactics was adopted on behalf of the petitioner establishment employer. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent workman opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that dilatory tactics was adopted on behalf of the petitioner establishment employer. Firstly the reference itself was challenged and the writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter when the application filed to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry as preliminary issue was rejected, then again the writ petition was filed which was dismissed with cost with the observation to conclude the proceeding within four months. The petitioner was free to prove the charges on merit. He was required to produce the evidence not only to prove the validity of the enquiry report but also on merit of the case to prove the charges but inspite of the opportunity given, no evidence was led on merit to prove the charges. Whatever evidence was available that was the evidence with regard to the domestic enquiry, hence rightly the award was passed. He also contended that it was specific case of the respondent workman that he was not engaged any where else after dismissal from service and no evidence was led contrary to that on behalf of the petitioner employer to prove that the respondent was engaged during that period any where and getting salary. Hence rightly the impugned award was passed to reinstate the petitioner who was victimised and only against him action was taken and as such no interference is required. 5. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. From a perusal of the record it is clear that admittedly the respondent was in service from 7.10.1978 to 16.2.1987 when after domestic inquiry he was dismissed from service, then the industrial dispute was raised and the matter was referred. Initially the reference itself was challenged in which interim order was passed. Subsequently writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter when the application to decide the issue regarding validity of domestic enquiry was rejected, then the Writ Petition No. 47659/09 was filed which was dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable by the petitioner to the contesting respondent workman No. 2. Initially the reference itself was challenged in which interim order was passed. Subsequently writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter when the application to decide the issue regarding validity of domestic enquiry was rejected, then the Writ Petition No. 47659/09 was filed which was dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable by the petitioner to the contesting respondent workman No. 2. Since the reference was of the year 1991 and being old matter, hence further direction was issued by this court while dismissing the writ petition on 24.5.2010 that the reference made before the Labour Court be disposed off within four months and if the adjournment was sought at the instance of the employer petitioner, then that might be granted only on payment of heavy cost. This prayer was not accepted that the validity of the domestic enquiry should be decided as preliminary issue. 7. In view of the judgment of Hon. Apex Court in the case of Divyash Pandit v. Management NCCBM Laws (SC) (supra) it was held by the Apex Court that the respondent might have not made any prayer for additional evidence in its written statement but, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Road Transport v. Laxmi Dev Amma this did not place the fetter on the powers of the court/tribunal to lead the evidence including the production of the documents at any stage of proceeding before they are concluded. Once the Labour court came to the conclusion that the inquiry was non est, the fact of this case warranted that the Labour Court should have given one opportunity to the respondent to establish the charges before passing the award in favour of the workman. Ordinarily if it is found by the Labour court that the finding of the domestic inquiry are perverse and there was violation of principle of natural justice, then the opportunity is required to be given to adduce the evidence to prove the charges on merit because if it is found that the inquiry was valid, no further evidence is required and if it is found that the domestic inquiry report vitiates, then on the basis of those evidences the case cannot be decided on merit. After finding that the domestic inquiry vitiates, then the opportunity might be given to prove the charges to the employer against the workman. After finding that the domestic inquiry vitiates, then the opportunity might be given to prove the charges to the employer against the workman. However, in the present case the services of the respondent workman was dismissed in February 1987. The reference was made to the Labour Court in December, 1991, Firstly reference was challenged, when the application was rejected to decide the validity of the domestic inquiry as preliminary issue the same was challenged and that writ petition was dismissed with cost. Thereafter the impugned award was passed on 20.3.2013. Hence the respondent workman remained out of job for more than 24 years. When the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed with cost and prayer of the petitioner was not accepted to decide the issue, regarding validity of the inquiry as preliminary issue then in these circumstances, considering the delay the evidence might have been led on behalf of the petitioner employer to prove the charges so the issue regarding evidence of domestic inquiry could have been decided simultaneously with merit of the case. When it was found that the domestic inquiry was not proper which was against the principle of natural justice and since no additional evidence was led on behalf of the petitioner instead of that only dilatory tactics was adopted, then there was no opinion before the Labour court but to decide the matter on merit. Hence the judgment relied by the petitioner will not be applicable in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. Earlier when the writ petition No. 47659/09 filed by the petitioner was dismissed with cost on 24.5.2010 that was not challenged, hence that order has become final. Hence in view of the facts no further opportunity was given after deciding the issue regarding validity of the domestic inquiry. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances there is no illegality in the impugned award and no interference is required. 9. So for as the second point regarding direction to reinstate with full back wages is concerned the petitioner was dismissed from service in 1987 and the matter was referred in December 1991. Initially the reference was challenged and the writ petition was dismissed. 9. So for as the second point regarding direction to reinstate with full back wages is concerned the petitioner was dismissed from service in 1987 and the matter was referred in December 1991. Initially the reference was challenged and the writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter when the application to decide the issue regarding validity of the domestic inquiry was rejected then again the writ petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner employer which was dismissed with cost on 24.5.2010. However, continuously dilatory tactics was adopted on behalf of the petitioner. The specific case on behalf of the respondent workman was that he was not engaged in any where gair fully and no material was placed on behalf of the petitioner to show that he was engaged gainfully in any where and was getting wages/salary during that period when litigation was pending. Hence in the interest of justice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India no interference is required. 10. As per information if the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, then he will be entitled for payment of wages which was admissible till the date of superannuation and will be entitled for all retiral benefits. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. However, no order as to cost.