JUDGMENT : B.K. Nayak, J. - The petitioner-management has filed this writ petition challenging the order under Annexure-1 dated 26.03.2001 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela in I.D. Misc. Case No. 183 of 1997 holding that the domestic enquiry against the opposite party-workman was not conducted fairly and properly and thereby refusing to approve the action of the management in removing the workman, and also the order dated 06.11.2001 (Annexure-2) passed by the said Tribunal refusing the prayer of the management to adduce additional evidence in support of the charge of misconduct of the workman. The petitioner-management passed order of removal of the opposite party-workman from service for misconduct after holding a domestic enquiry and filed application before the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of the order of removal of the workman, since the opposite party-workman was concerned in a pending I.D. Case before the said Tribunal. The said application was registered as I.D. Misc. Case No. 183 of 1997. In his show cause the workman took the plea that the domestic enquiry against him was not conducted fairly and properly. By order dated 26.03.2001 (Annexure-1) the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela held that the domestic enquiry against the workman was not conducted fairly and properly and, therefore, he disapproved the action of the management in removing the workman. Thereafter, the management filed a petition to restore I.D. Misc. Case No. 183 of 1997 and to allow the management to lead evidence before the Tribunal in proof of the misconduct of the workman. The said petition has been rejected vide order dated 06.11.2001 (Annexure-2) on the ground that the management has not made any specific request seeking opportunity of leading additional evidence to substantiate the charges against the workman. 2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act itself, the management had made a request to lead evidence to prove the charge against the workman in the event the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry against the workman was not fair and proper. But in spite of such pleading and request the Tribunal passed the order under Annexure-1 closing the case after holding that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper, without giving opportunity to the management to lead additional evidence with regard to the merits of the charge. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has also gone wrong in stating in the order under Annexure-2 that no request for adducing additional evidence in proof of the charge has been made earlier. 3. The learned counsel appearing for opposite party-workman, on the other hand, contends that in the application under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the management has not made any request for allowing it opportunity to lead additional evidence on the merits of the charge and further that no application subsequent to filing of show cause by the workman was filed by the management seeking permission to lead additional evidence in proof of the charge as held by the apex Court in the case of Sambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and others :, AIR 1984 SC 289 , which decision has been affirmed later by a Constitutional Bench by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. v. Smt. Lakshmidevamma and another :, AIR 2001 SC 2090 . Referring to paragraph-16 of the judgment in the case of Sambhu Nath Goyal (supra), the learned counsel for the opposite party-workman submits that in a proceeding under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act request/application by the management for adducing additional evidence in support of the merits of the charge should be made after the workman files his show cause/written statement challenging the propriety and legality of the domestic enquiry in pursuance of which the removal order is passed. 4. In paragraph-16 of the judgment in the case of Sambhu Nath Goyal (supra), it has been held as follows : "16. 4. In paragraph-16 of the judgment in the case of Sambhu Nath Goyal (supra), it has been held as follows : "16. We think that the application of the management to seek the permission of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for availing the right to adduce further evidence to substantiate the charge or charges framed against the workmen referred to in the above passage is the application which may be filed by the management during the pendency of its application made before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal seeking its permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to take a certain action or grant approval of the action taken by it. The management is made aware of the workman's contention regarding the defect in the domestic enquiry by the written statement of defence filed by him in the application filed by the management under Section 33 of the Act. Then, if the management chooses to exercise its right it must make up its mind at the earliest stage and file the application for that purpose without any unreasonable delay. But when the question arises in a reference 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 that statement before it files 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." 5. 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." 5. However, for holding as aforesaid the Hon'ble Court took note of the observation of the apex Court in the case of Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. :, AIR 1979 SC 1652 and quoted a passage therefrom in paragraph-15 of the judgment which is to the following effect : "Earlier clear-cut pronouncements of the Court in R.K. Jain's case ( AIR 1972 SC 136 ) and Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co's case ( AIR 1972 SC 1031 ) that this right to adduce additional evidence is a right of the management or the employer and it is to be availed of by a request at appropriate stage and there is no duty in law cast on the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court to give such an opportunity notwithstanding the fact that none was ever asked for are not even departed from. When we examine the matter on principle we would point out that a quasi-judicial Tribunal is under no such obligation to acquaint parties appearing before it about their rights more so in an adversary system which these quasi-judicial Tribunals have adopted. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the rights which the employer has in law to adduce additional evidence in a proceeding before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal either under Section 10 or Section 33 of the Act questioning the legality of the order terminating service must be availed of by the employer by making a proper request at the time when it files its statement of claim or written statement or makes an application seeking either permission to take a certain action or seeking approval of the action taken by it. If such a request is made in the statement of claim application or written statement, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal must give such an opportunity. If the request is made before the proceedings are concluded the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal should ordinarily grant the opportunity to adduce evidence. If such a request is made in the statement of claim application or written statement, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal must give such an opportunity. If the request is made before the proceedings are concluded the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal should ordinarily grant the opportunity to adduce evidence. But if no such request is made at any stage of the proceedings, there is no duty in law cast on the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal to give such an opportunity and if there is no such obligatory duty in law failure to give any such opportunity cannot and would not vitiate the proceedings." 6. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn.(supra) has held as follows : "3. In Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda, (1984) 1 SCR 85 : ( AIR 1984 SC 289 : 1983 Lab IC 1697) this Court held (Para-15): "The rights which the employer has in law to adduce additional evidence in a proceeding before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal either under Section 10 or Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act questioning the legality of the order terminating the service must be availed of by the employer by making a proper request at the time when it files its statement of claim or written statement or makes an application seeking either permission to take certain action or seeking approval of the action taken by it." The above observation is only a part of the quotation made in Sambhu Nath Goyal (supra) from the case of Shankar Chakravarti (supra) as noted in the preceding paragraph (portion underlined). 7. In the instant case in paragraph-13 of the original application under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act filed by the petitioner a request has been made by the management to allow it to lead evidence to prove the charge on merits in the event the Tribunal came to hold that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was not fair and proper. The pleadings in paragraph-13 of the petition is not merely pleading reserving right of the management to lead additional evidence on the merits of the charge, but also a request to allow it to lead evidence on merit of the charge, if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry against the workman was not fair and proper. A prayer or request need not only be in the prayer portion of the petition, it can be in any part of the petition. 8. The only principle laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Sambhu Nath Goyal (supra) is that a specific application or request has to be made by the management to lead evidence on the merits of the charge. It does not lay down that where a prayer has already been made in the main petition by the management to this effect, a further application should also be made by the management after the workman files his written statement or show cause. There is also no logic as to why repeated prayers or requests are to be made by the management to allow it opportunity to lead evidence on the merits of the charge. In case request has already been made in the original application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, there is no necessity of making a further prayer to the same effect at a later stage. The only requirement as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Sambhu Nath Goyal (supra) is that a specific request during the course of the proceeding should be made by the management. 9. In view of the request made in paragraph-13 of the application of the petitioner-management filed under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Act, which has been clearly lost sight of by the Industrial Tribunal, the orders under Annexures-1 and 2 are unsustainable. The Tribunal should have given opportunity to the petitioner-management to lead evidence on the merits of the charge against the workman. Accordingly, the orders under Annexures-1 and 2 are set aside and the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela is directed to give opportunity to the petitioner-management to lead additional evidence on the merits of the charge against the workman and proceed further with the Industrial Misc. Accordingly, the orders under Annexures-1 and 2 are set aside and the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela is directed to give opportunity to the petitioner-management to lead additional evidence on the merits of the charge against the workman and proceed further with the Industrial Misc. Case No. 183 of 1997 from that stage and dispose of the said proceeding expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of first appearance of both the parties before the Tribunal. To cut short the matter, both the parties are directed to appear before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela on 15th April, 2014. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Final Result : Disposed off